Actually, I' ve had some further thoughts on the whole Turner prize/plagiarism issue I was talking about in that last post - there is a way for the use of someone else's work to be exploited like this. It's ok if the original work is acknowledged in some form - frequently financial. As I recollect, the original artist didn't even know this had happened until the painting was nominated. Also to my recollection, he was reported as either sueing or threatening to sue the Turner nominated artist involved. If he receives some form of recompense or at least some form of official recognition that his work played a role, then that's ok. But the whole nature of the exercise as it originally played out - a few people visiting a London gallery and noticing that the cover of an old paperback appeared to have been reproduced with remarkable accuracy and hung on a gallery wall, with no acknowledgement of its origin.

Sometimes, there's all kinds of extenuating circumstances - like maybe it's a spoof, or a comment on the original work say - who the hell did that big painting of the spitfire taken from a comic book? That's cool - but something about the whole Turner thing smelled rotten. I know this was a couple of years ago and I'm ranting, but there weren't any blogs back then, and it's my blog, and I'll rant if I want to ...

No comments: