Do Artists Have to Prostitute Themselves to Sell Art?!?!

Hi Chris!

Thank you for your comments. You can tell this is a very touchy subject for me and for many other artists I know are dealing with the same situations every day and even worse than me.

Thank you for stopping by!

MV./

Hello. I like your art. With regards to copyright, I am a member of the Society of Equestrian Artists here in Britain. A few years ago a new young artist appeared, with great acclaim being heaped on her, she had just graduated in art from somewhere fairly minor but she had already received a contract to put paintings up in a hotel and also was having an exhibition of her own. (Only dreams for me at the moment !) Anyway I immediately recognised she had copied each image from a very famous French photographer of horses (cant remember his name at the moment) but he is famous for photographing fantastic horses galloping through fields. He was very popular at that time and no doubt still is and i had a desk diary etc of his work. I couldnt believe she could have completed a degree without anyone noticing and that the society of equestrian artists hadnt noticed. I did send off an email to complain. I am always very careful to take my own photographs.

I do notice on your website though that you could do with putting a copyright notice across your paintings. It might stop the ebay problems.

Hello Jennifer and thank you for stopping by my blog.

Isn’t it amazing what some would do just to “make it”?

Those who resort in this kind of conduct don’t realize that they might make money bust just for a while and sooner than later they have to pay more of what they took originally.

Being honest with ones art is the most important thing there is for artists on any level.

Thank you for the advice, I could certainly add the copyright notice over my images but that I’m afraid is not much. If someone wants to take them or make derivatives of them that’s not going to stop it.

MV./

It is obvious there is no low this person will stoop to. Apparently she is going after people legally to take down any mention of her thuggery. Already Wet Canvas and Shutterstock recieved letters to take down the threads to conform to international law.

Hello Frank!
It’s unfortunate someone will resort in this kind of action. I’m afraid no one will ever know if this person can really “paint”? for sure she destroyed her career unnecessarily just for a few prizes, shameful…
What ever happened with freedom of speech? it’s obvious this person cheated whether she took the images and painted them herself or printed them out and made them look like a watercolor painting. The owners of the images stated so publicly, so no matter what she did she cheated and committed fraud. I don’t think there is an international law that would make boards and private blogs delete the comments when warning or commenting about a fraud of this magnitude that involves money and a worldwide prestigious organization, otherwise Kwame Kilpatrick would have done that already… there are blogs as far as Australia talking about the issue with the mayor of Michigan and even a wiki page!

As Frank noted, it looks like Ms Luxemburg has called in the heavy mob. Posts about this subject are disappearing from forums all over. The latest thread to vanish is on the Microstock Group forum.

They’ve probably taken that action because people have called her a thief.

That’s debatable – she could well have purchased the photographs perfectly legally.

However, the fact remains that she entered a very, very close copy of them into a prestigious competition as her own work. How it was made we don’t know. Only the AWS can say that now (and the artist). She won that competition with that derivative work, together with all the glory and a substantial cash prize.
Now, if that isn’t legally dishonest, it sure is morally dishonest.

Hi F.C. Parker
You say: “That’s debatable – she could well have purchased the photographs perfectly legally.”
Not quite, according to the copyright law and the policies of the stock photo websites from where she apparently purchased the images http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml, even if she paid for the use of the images, that doesn’t give her the right to reproduce them for commercial use (meaning earning money out of them). The fact that she created and entered the derivative work and won a price automatically changes everything. When you purchase stock photo, the intent is for you to use it on your website or blog to enhance the presence of it, on your printed material (fliers and such) again, to enhance the presence of it, but that doesn’t mean you can create a work of art with them sell the original, make prints or use it on fine art contests where you earn a cash prize. The copyright law is very strict in this subject thankfully. If the owner of the image has not given the user the rights to reproduce the image in the form of, to be sold and make profit of, or to claim a new copyright, the user in this case this lady, is infringing in the copyright of those two photographers and is breaking quite a few policies and laws in the process.
In her case she’s facing serious charges of theft (even if she doesn’t like the term) and copyright violation by reproducing the images without the proper permission of the photographers (remember there are two photographers and both claim never given her the rights to create a derivative work). The fact that everything, every little detail, dust particle and even wrinkles in the new work is exactly the same as the photographs indicate it’s a print altered to give the appearance of a watercolor (wouldn’t be the first artist to pull this off, go to eBay and you will find quite a few doing this sort of thing). By her entering the contest she accepted their rules and by lying in the process she certainly buried herself.
But assuming that she actually painted the watercolor, she would still be facing copyright infringements by those two photographers and is in big trouble with the AWS.
The heavy mob as you say is the tool of intimidation created by her hopefully legal team (otherwise she would be dumping more mud on top of her head) which many follow just not to get into trouble. If I’m approached by her “mob” I will get her name out, but not the post. Freedom of speech still applies and if more people would bring this kind of situations to the light we for sure would have a cleaner industry. If she didn’t like to be called thief she shouldn’t have committed theft.

Thank you for stopping by Parker!

MV./

yes. yes they do.

To the point of blatantly and shamelessly stealing?… then they were never artists in first place, just opportunists idiots who think are clever… until law catches with them ;o)

This was just published front page in the Vancouver Sun newspaper today and although not surprised, but shocked that it was from shutterstock (winning image). Thanks to David Bains for investigating the artist and publishing it.
Being a photographer, I notice a lot of pros use magazine tearsheets to copy and interpret poses and lighting, do it in their supposed style and come off as fresh and original. What is worse is that its completely forgiven to do this, and sometimes praised. Inspiration they call it, where I prefer to call it simply lazy and unoriginal. Thanks for your article, great works as well and greeting from Canada.

Thank you Garces for the update on this so controversial issue and for stopping by my blog.

I agree, lazy and unoriginal. How unfortunate they don’t realize they will always be followers and that don’t have what it takes to be the artists they so much make everyone believe.

Great article by David Bains in the Vancouver Sun by the way!

Greetings from the US.

MV./

Please do not be so quick to judge. Sounds like
professional jealousy to me. I have seen many
examples of “sampling” in art gallery’s around the
world.

Tomas, obviously you have no idea what you are talking about when stating “professional jealousy”. If you have read my blog upside down and you would have followed my 30+ years in the art world you would known one thing I condemn is exactly this way of creating art using someone else’s works. I can’t think of one thing that would make me “jealous” of this shameful situation Mrs. Luxemburg is going through for less than dishonesty.

To begin with her work is not original, mainly because she uses not one, but two photographs from two different photographers. Just because she combines them both to make a new one which on top qualifies as derivative work which is also a violation in the copyright law, doesn’t mean is original in any way. If she wanted the final painting to be original she should have taken the photographs herself and do whatever composition she wanted to, that way she wouldn’t be in this predicament, but using stock photos to “create” a new painting is nevertheless illegal no matter how you want to disguise it. I use my own photographs to create my landscape, figurative and still life paintings, and yes I use stock photo which I pay the royalty fee for the purpose of displaying the large paintings in a room view, which is the LIMIT for stock photo use. She earned a monetary prize using stock photos even if she painted the painting herself, infringing in the copyright of at least 2 photographers.

In the article you share http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/todays-paper/photo+photo+work+work/1013570/story.html there are words by Mrs. Luxemburg which are less than truthful. She says in the article and I quote “[Ms. Luxenburg said the controversy has left her "in a shambles." She paid the licence fee for royalty-free images from shutterstock.com images, so did nothing illegal. But she says she misunderstood AWS contest rules. "I didn't understand the terms," she said. "I never would have entered otherwise. I did it innocently. There was no malicious intent to deceive anyone."]” — The rules governing stock photo are very precise. Yes, no one denies she paid for the use of the stock photos, but if she read the policies on that website she would have found that they do not allow the reproduction of the images the way she used them for. Stock photo is intended to enhance a website, a printed material or similar for promotion. What she used the images she paid for falls into copyright violation. Shutterstock does not hold the copyright of those images, the copyright holders are the photographers no one else. If she wanted to use the images to make a painting she should have contacted the photographers and paid them accordingly and at least the copyright issue would be out of her list of worries. Not knowing what the rules of the AWS meant at the moment of entering the contest is just a plain lame excuse to say the least. The rules are more than clear.

She also states in the article and I quote “[Ms. Luxenburg, 54, said it's the first time she's used photographs other than her own. She says she did so because a serious illness left her housebound in 2006."]– well the other photographers who found their paintings on her website and even an altered portrait picture from another photographer are also lying then and she’s a victim of a terrible ploy? Before the website and all the images online went down I had the opportunity to check her website and found the portrait this woman photographer mentions as well was taken and reproduced illegally as well.

The copyright law in the US as well as in other countries is very specific. What Mrs. Luxemburg did using those two and other images is illegal, no matter how you put it. She might have not known the law, I understand that, this is exactly the issue in art, many think they can take and always think no one is looking until someone notices and the disaster starts to evolve, but the reality is you can tell a police officer you didn’t see the red light, but if he sees you just not stopping he will give you a ticket, I don’t know why this should be different.

The other issue everyone is not clear about is if she actually paints the images or not, this is something I can’t comment about as I’m not the qualified person, but I’m guessing the painting will be sent to a lab to determine if the painting is really hand painted or not, but this is for now not the actual issue, the issue is the copyright violations she committed willingly or not and the fact she entered a painting to the AWS that obviously was not supposed to be entered in that contest in first place.

Thank you anyways for stopping by and pointing the 400+ subscribers of this blog to this new article.

M.Valenti
Advocate for Copyright Law

In light of what is presently happening, a few thoughts
Can artists throw away all their tools?
Where are the artists who make pencils, brushes and paint?
Artists cannot use cameras, slide projectors, or photos
Artists can never use modern technology to create art
Artists to have no ability to read about or look at another artists work.
Artists have to stop being “educated” or “influenced”, it’s like living a life off plagiarism.
Artists must view art as something to be attained threw originality by incompetence
Artists must never consider it a compliment when another artist looks at or uses some aspect of their work. Actually, never allow another artist to view your work
Certain artist’s cannot be allowed access to the rules. And I mean never
Artists must establish a clear demarcation line as to what is acceptable and what is not when creating art
Artists to understand that it’s not the final product but how you got there that counts

Future thoughts
An Artist must try and control their enthusiasm when visiting the local patient office.
Make sure and I mean Dam sure that you affiliate with the proper denomination when you create from your inspiration
Artists to understand and always be willing to suffer the consequences dished out by their peers.
Artists must be like the magician and stick to the code, Artists are alchemists haven’t you been told

I’m going back to using iron oxide on a finger and carbon on a burnt stick, unless of coarse someone has a problem with that?

What about Maxwell Parish, or Chuck Close? Do you not think Maxwell would have taken advantage of a computer if he had been given the opportunity? How about the artist Jan Vermeer? How many water colorists paint using a projector or a computer to help them complete a finished image? I believe that practically all artists doing photo, hyper, whatever name given in whatever medium use what ever technology it takes to get that image. There really is no difference other than one is faster than the other. Either way it takes talent to execute, no matter what the media or the tool.
It wasn’t that long ago that photo realism wasn’t even accepted by the fine art establishment. Painting without a paint brush! Airbrushing, that’s not art. So what if we have progressed from the mirror reflection, to the photo, to the computer, it is just another tool at our disposal. The final image is what makes the impression is it not? Wake up to the fact that technology is liberating the creativity of the masses. With computers and software, digital cameras, and home print shops, the art scene is changing. Image making is easier now, and I believe we haven’t even begun to envision where we are going to be able to go. This should be a time of celebration. Instead, artists being challenged are becoming a bunch of elitist traditionalists. Branded, copyrighted, and hopefully patented ideas, Give me a break!

Thank you m.berwick for visiting my blog.

The term “Artist” is a very wide term. There are many variants and ramifications of just been an Artist. A sketcher is and Artist. A watercolor painter, is an Artist. An oil painter, is an Artist. A sculpture is done by an Artist. Digital art is done by an Artist, so the main issue is which of those the artist wants to be and be true to it.

Although I understand many artists feel technology shouldn’t be allowed in an artist’s studio, I’m on the contrary opinion, sort of.

A painter, the one who uses a brush, oil/acrylic/watercolor, or materials like charcoal, pencil, pastels, etc can certainly use the technology we have available today to HELP the artist create.

When I’m saying HELP the artist create I’m talking about having technology (photography, computer monitor, etc) as a tool to help the artist perform and achieve in its own medium (oil, watercolor, etc) to the fullest WITHOUT the direct interference of the technology in the form of art the artist chooces to create.

In my case I use my own photos from my trips and visits as a reference for my works, which I display in a monitor where I play with contrast and light to guide me better into find dark or light spots to enhance my overall painting which is done from beginning to end by me by hand, from the sketching of the figures, to laying down my oils, mixing all the way to varnish.

I’m not using a print of scene or a photograph to later apply paint on top making it look like I painted the picture myself, technique that many use these days and which I consider completely unethical since the actual abilities of the artist are commanded by the technology itself and not by the experience and technique of the artist who holds the brush. In other words, if it’s a handmade painting done from start to finish by the artist without the aid of a print underneath then call it that a painting, if it’s a digital print, photo, giclee, then call it that, but don’t pass a print for a painting because that’s just plain wrong.
Digital art as well as photography are a form of art, and I doubt very much a photographer would call its work a painting, because is just not that, is a photo captured by the experienced eye of the camera holder which nonetheless is an artist as well.
In the case of this particular issue with Mrs. Luxemburg’s “painting” the real problem was the use of photo references (assuming she painted the actual painting by hand using watercolors in a classical mater without the aid of a print underneath) for which she didn’t have the necessary permits. She confused the royalty she paid to use the stock photos from those two artists with the right to reproduce the images. Stock photo websites do not hold the copyright of the images they sell for certain use. The copyright holders are the artists who took those images. This whole thing would have been avoided if she would have gotten in contact with the artists, requested the necessary permissions in written, paid the necessary royalties FOR THE REPRODUCTION IN PAINTING OF THOSE IMAGES FOR SALE PURPOSES AND TO BE ENTERED IN A CONTEST FOR MONEY PRIZE and none of this would have happened.

Although many have argued she just printed the pictures out this is something has not yet been determined.

I agree that artists should find their own voices and stop following someone else’s path, otherwise they would always be living in the shadow of a another artist.

There is nothing wrong with been inspired by another artist, the true problem is when do you stop being inspired to start copying? Would you have enough in you to determine you as an artist have crossed the line?

MV./

Thank you s.latreilie for stopping by my blog.

You say and I quote “How many water colorists paint using a projector or a computer to help them complete a finished image? I believe that practically all artists doing photo, hyper, whatever name given in whatever medium use what ever technology it takes to get that image”
Then where is the talent of the artist?… can the artist perform THE SAME without the aid of those tools?… IF the artist main concern is to produce faster something that he can do exactly the same by hand, then by all means, get all the technology you want BUT call it as it is. Don’t pass a retouched print for a painting, that’s just plain wrong. I have no objection in artists using the technology that is available to speed up the process, to help us be more efficient in our studios. I know I use my camera to capture the landscape which I later paint in my studio instead of standing in the field getting bitten by mosquitos and what not. In this case I use the technology of my digital camera to capture as many scenes as I possibly can to maximize my painting time. But printing a landscape or a portrait in a canvas to then apply paint on top to MAKE IT LOOK like we just sweated painting it is just not right. The talent an artist has shouldn’t be clouded or enhanced by the technology he or she uses. If the artist is not capable to perform the same in his classical field (oil painting, watercolor, etc) without the help of the technology, then there is no artist behind that signature, just a wanna be.
I agree there is a completely different art form, which is digital art, in which the artist brush is a mouse yet the artist is in complete and absolute control of the medium he uses, his computer and software along with the mouse and tablet, but if that person has no artistic ability whatsoever, talent as you call it, there is no way he can perform even with the help of the technology.

MV./

Then where is the talent of the artist?… can the artist perform THE SAME without the aid of those tools?
If the artist is not capable to perform the same in his classical field (oil painting, watercolor, etc) without the help of the technology, then there is no artist behind that signature, just a wanna be

I still believe that the sweat and tears are encountered no matter which tool one creates an image with. I agree that a lot of artists are not being truthful to the buying public about how their art purchase was made. Example, recently I encountered an artist that was painting gel over printed canvas, I asked how much for an original? I think I surprised her. (Her images where fabulous surrealism’s). I believe that the majority of the people who have bought her work did not understand her technique. But they still valued her image, and for the price she was asking they would most likely have bought it regardless.
The current debate should be about how the art is created and does that technique qualify. The questioning of Luxemburg’s technique and its future impact should be of more interest than the source of her image scandal. Saying that, I would like to comment later on the challenges associated with the “branding” of art .
Let’s think Picasso, especially since he was classically trained. He rejected those values and obviously still excelled at the expense of technique. So in the mind of some originality of expression is not always based on craftsmanship. But as some know, no matter how much he tried he could never purge the poison and become totally naive. Prejudice against style and or technique is always prevalent. Fine artists and critics call realists copyists, the skill as being nothing more than paint by numbers. Their belief is intellectual elitism, it has no practical application in the world of the realist, and the difficulties involved in producing an image. Their philosophy is in contradiction to the interpretation of talent. According to Webster talent is a special often creative or artistic aptitude . So I would assume it is what you do with the tools that you decide to use and that your endeavors are appreciated buy the appropriate audience. I believe that there should be no demarcation line when discussing what an artist can and cannot use. It is not an argument, been to a minimalist or a German abstract expressionism show, or how about found art exhibits? Should be a realists nightmare don’t you think? To often this discussion on talent becomes a pretentious environment, so I believe that all of mankind is creative and talented and leave it at that.

So then a question, by validating realists, would it place the abilities of those artists who choose not to into question? Realists have to master the countless tools of their craft, there is little if ever a margin or tolerance for error. The Fine Art environment disregards technique to validate their expression. As if our endeavors are taboo. So I had always assumed that realists where the opposite. I must have been delusional to assume that it was the final image and not the process involved that leads to legitimacy in photo realism. Look like a photo but not be one. But that is under the gun because of digital photography, hardly anyone has a traditional dark room anymore. How many professionals still produce images like the traditional developer? If anything when we now view photos produced the chemical way we have a greater appreciation for that craft. Is digital photography to be considered inferior than? It reminds me of all the plastic model builders that did all their scratch building on tanks and airplanes. About ten years ago eastern block countries started producing resin engines and cockpits etc. The masters freaked because the masses could now build models like they did without the effort. Yes anyone can march into a model store and buy the kits and tools, but that doesn’t mean you have a great model when glued and painted. In the end the traditional builders gained even further appreciation from the masses and they were never really challenged. But other talented builders did emerge that took model building to further heights because of the efforts of those resin makers. Art is the same way, traditional Realists should not feel cheated or angered by these new technologies. These technologies will only further challenge and complicate the process for you, not as some assume simplify it.
A practicing realist who has through trail and error knows his medium will notice the incompetence of those trying to leap frog by using modern tech. Programmers may design these tools but it still takes a competent artist to use them effectively .A print used to be made by hand with a press remember. Stone lithography, silk screen and metal plate, for quite awhile it has also meant offset. I am not alone in the belief that the public is being taken advantage of by the mass marketing of so call limited edition posters by artists. Is that not a form of fraud? Do artists have anything original when speaking effort of theirs on that print? Oh, the signature! But I guess that’s okay? We all understand that process but at the same time we wanted a piece of the action.
Well with the emergence of the ink jet printer, tech is giving the artist the ability to actually start making prints again, no secondary party involved here, artist’s should be thankful the production of their images can now be done at home. Hands on!
Competition will be fierce.
Taking all of the above into consideration, I will say once again that using computers is nothing more than another tool that is available to the artist. Painting does not and will not become obsolete, if anything it will be that much more appreciated.
If you wish to view it as a tool that some how cheapens the creative experience, quote “Wannabe”, you are mistaken and being elitist.

From mirror to camera to projector to computer, it is nothing more than a steady progression to which there is no end. The “new” modern masters of this era will understand and use the tools necessary whether considered traditional or high tech in the pursuit of their creativity.

Hello s.latreilie, thank you again for stopping by.

I’m not against technology in an artist’s studio in any way. I use it, yet call it as it is. I’m all for technology to help a traditional artist in their business, but I do have a problem when the traditional techniques are dropped to be replaced by technology yet the artist is not using or shifting the technique title to the respective one. In other words, don’t call it oil painting if you printed out on an Epson giclee print and don’t pass it as oils if you used acrylics instead just because oils command higher prices in the art market.

When I refer to a “wannabe” I’m talking about a self called artists who for example prints out a photo, paints on top to make it look like he painted it by hand (the example of the artist you encountered), and calls it a painting in whatever the medium it happens to be painted with. There is no absolute talent in that, the artist in that situation is nonexistent, is like you say painting by numbers. Give that “artist” a white paper, a few brushes and paints and he won’t have a clue at where to start or how to paint and even if he’s able to accomplish something the disappointment of the viewer is evident as the real result is not like the one he has been collecting previously. To me that’s not a modern master, is a fraud both in the technology level and classical and unfortunately the field of art is filled with “artists” like that even in galleries.

To give you an example, just a couple of years ago there was a huge scandal that I witnessed first hand on eBay since the person (artist) involved was in one of my art groups. This “artist” was selling and commanding quite high prices for what looked to be very unique watercolor paintings of women, usually naked. The paintings looked spectacular! soon the complaints from porn photographers started to come up to the surface, similar to what is happening with Mrs. Luxenburg, since the images this “artist” was using were taken from porn sites at least the majority, without the required permits. Photographers demanded eBay the seller to be taken down, they started claiming copyright violations, etc. At the same time a group of what appears to be the artist’s collectors started the claim the so called watercolors where altered prints and with solid evidence. One of the so called watercolor paintings was taken to a lab for analysis and the result was astonishing. What appeared to be a very nice realistic watercolor was nothing more than an altered print, with some watercolor paint and china ink on top. Before this even started I got one of those paintings, and the thing that struck me the most was the weight of the paper. It was extremely thin compared to the watercolor paper I used to use, and after all this came out I understood why the paper had to be so thin, of course it needed to go through a printing machine. The “artist” really fought back and in an attempt to recover his dignity in the art world and convinced by another artist who believed he was the real thing, he decided to photograph a painting session to prove he can paint what he was selling for quite a while on eBay and through galleries. The result? something that was not even close to what he was selling. The final painting was not bad, but you could see the differences between the photo reference and the actual painting, while with the previously sold ones there was no difference, they were like two water drops, just like in the case of Mrs. Luxenburg extreme realism. The painting he did trying to prove he could paint was like painted by someone else, it didn’t have the same effects as the others and you could tell this man has been lying all this time and worse believing in his lie. If he would have called his paintings from the beginning “watercolor retouched prints” no one would have had a problem, but the fact he tried to pass a print as an original hand painted watercolor was just not right. As an artist you loose absolute respect for that person, even knowing he can paint, just not as good as he claims.

Like I said I have no problem with technology and the available tools artists have today to create or to make their studio time more efficient, whether is with an actual brush and paint or a mouse and a computer, but talent has to be there. It requires having enough talent to create both on a screen or a canvas, and the honesty on the part of the artist to call it what it is, is absolutely crucial. Don’t call it original painting and demand people to pay thousands of dollars for it if you printed out one of your photographs and added paint on top .There is no talent in that. You might have talent as a photographer but not as a painter. Does this have merit as a unique form of expression? I don’t think so. It might look nice, but that even my 4 year old can do it and that doesn’t make him an artist. It is just a product for the masses, yet many pass it as “original” to a countless number of collectors and galleries, and it has nothing to do with being a snob or elitist artist, it has to be with real talent, ability and most importantly honesty and business ethics.

You say “I believe that all of mankind is creative and talented and leave it at that.” And I have to add, all mankind is creative and talented that’s why we have evolved otherwise we would still be living in caves, but that doesn’t make them all artists. There are millions of carpenters, but just a handful are really master carpenters. There are millions of bakers who make really good cakes, just a handful have shown to be real artists at what they do. The same with painting, there are millions of painters out there, just not all are artists, and I’m not been elitist, I’m been realistic.

For example, do I consider my limited edition prints art? Hell no! they are a product, nothing more. The original painting is the one that is art. The product, hence prints, is a more economical way to offer the image to a wide range of my collectors who just can’t afford the original, but not in my wildest dream I would call it a form of expression because is not no matter how much paint I would add on top to “enhance it”. Do my collectors pay for a signature alone? No, they pay for the image, because they enjoy it or match their couch. Whatever the reason might be they know as a secondary effect that print will increase in value so the signature becomes important BECAUSE the original is valuable, my signature and my name means something in the art world. Now, if I happen to take great photos and print them out as giclees then THAT would be a form of expression. I’m converting an image into a tangible form. An image I had the enough experience and talent to capture in certain way so unique that is just perfect and expresses what I’m trying to say, my view, then printing it out whether I decide to make just one or a million is a way to offer it to the public, to the collectors, but the first one the image per se, is the artistic expression and the print being the product same with digital art. Many confuse “art” with a “product” that being a hand pulled print, lithograph or giclee. In the stock photography websites you will find millions of images the majority are just products, been the image itself, there is no artistic ability required to capture a photo of a living room, in that case the artist (interior designer) is the one who takes the merit, not the photographer, but then you find a 10% are real art, just like the image of the man Mrs. Luxenburg used.

In the case of Mrs. Luxenburg there was no artistic ability in the making of that particular painting even if she painted the painting herself, by hand in a traditional way using brushes and watercolor and the reason is because she used images that she didn’t capture, they are not her voice. Certainly it looks nice if you like that kind of art. Even when combining them together to make a new one the images both together are the statement made by someone else and only one speaks separately with its own identity being that one the man. The painting is not “different enough” to create a different statement that will happen with a collage for example. The talent in the image per se is not there in my opinion. The artist in this case just copied by numbers if she painted it. As soon as you know the true behind the image you feel disappointed not only because she took someone else’s pictures, but because you immediately realize is not her voice the one speaking and even if you happen to like her work and execution, you have no clue what her real message or artistic expression is, what she is really trying to say with her work. That’s art, when an artist can talk without words through a visual media in the case of 2D art. There are many very nice paintings out there that look fabulous above a sofa or a fireplace, the real question is, “is that really art? What is the artist trying to say?” again confusing art with a product.

I’m intrigued too by the outcome of this current event with Mrs. Luxenburg. I too am intrigued about whether the painting was done by hand or printed out and enhanced. If this last is the case, this will sure be a terrible event

Thank you again for stopping by s.latreilie, I really enjoy your view on this subject.

Best,

M.Valenti./

[...] Do Artists Have to Prostitute Themselves to Sell Art … [...]