[Fwd: Debby and Larry Kline Art Issues]

While I can imagine their dismay, I can't really warm up to the
problem here. What would they wish to be protected by copyright? The
technique described below?? Or any somewhat similar art work??

Geert
http://nznl.com


On 21-nov-2005, at 7:04, Brett Stalbaum wrote:

>
>
> ——– Original Message ——–
> Subject: Debby and Larry Kline Art Issues
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:16:16 -0800
> From: Larry Kline <[email protected]>
> To: Full Focus <[email protected]>
>
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> We are contacting you to ask that you send a letter to Harper

Indeed – their attitude is reactionary: envy/disappointment + artists' ego
transfigured (all too typically) into the expression of an overreaching
desire to control… copyright? You can't copyright an idea, only the
expression of an idea. (That's Copyright 101). Plus, the nature of artistic
production has always made for repetition and redundancy. And that's a good
thing.

(Write letters? They've got to be kidding.)

JG
http://joygarnett.com


> Imagine our dismay to find that six months later they
> published images of a derivative work produced in England.

> The September issue of Harper's featured a photograph of the work of
> Richard Box and an installation called Field.


On 11/21/05, Geert Dekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> While I can imagine their dismay, I can't really warm up to the
> problem here. What would they wish to be protected by copyright? The
> technique described below?? Or any somewhat similar art work??
>
> Geert
> http://nznl.com
>
>

Interesting, the real precedent that comes to mind here is of course Walter
de Maria's Lightening Field, which Richard Box cites:

http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm

and which the Klines neglect to mention (as though their project came to
them ex nihilo):

http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm


JG
…
http://joygarnett.com

oops, too quick on the draw: here's the link to the Klines page:
http://www.jugglingklines.com/electric_fields.htm

On 11/21/05, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Interesting, the real precedent that comes to mind here is of course
> Walter de Maria's Lightening Field, which Richard Box cites:
>
> http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm
>
> and which the Klines neglect to mention (as though their project came to
> them ex nihilo):
>
> http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm
>
>
> JG
> …
> http://joygarnett.com
>
>
>

Boy, these works certainly look similar. And Lightning Field is the "ground"
on which both Box & Klines have built their works. But what seems to
differentiate these projects is the clear environmental implications the
Klines have attached to their work-laudable, but in no way justifying the
notion of copyright they apply. The Klines seem have a quasi-environmental
project a la Helen & Newton Harrison or Mel Chin. In Box's case the work is
more bound to blue-chips and formalism-his documentation shots are fabulous.
Unless I missed something, he seems in large measure oblivious, at least on
the website, to exactly those implications of the work that motivate the
Klines. Two obvious formal sources for Box, beyond de Maria, are Nauman
(work with negative space and with neon) and, predating that, Flavin. A
third much less obvious source might be Robert Rauschenberg's Pelican
(performance w/neon).



Judith



_____

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 11:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: [Fwd: Debby and Larry Kline Art Issues]



Interesting, the real precedent that comes to mind here is of course Walter
de Maria's Lightening Field, which Richard Box cites:

http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm

and which the Klines neglect to mention (as though their project came to
them ex nihilo):

http://www.sculpture.wsa.soton.ac.uk/events/box.htm


JG
…
http://joygarnett.com

This sounds a lot like the silly patent issues that are popping up
all over the place in regards to software. Sure, I'd be pissed off if
a magazine asked me to send pictures of my work and they then decided
to go with pictures of someone else's work that looks very similar,
but to try to turn this into a copyright/intellectual property issue
is just silly. Also, assuming that Richard Box's work is derivative
of theirs is very pompous. If I were they, I'd be careful what I wish
for because close examination of their website and Richard Box's
website doesn't exactly prove that "they got there first."

On top of everything else, throwing around these "patent world" terms
is very unbecoming. If derivative work becomes a no-no in the arts,
we're all going to be in a lot of trouble.

Pall


On 21.11.2005, at 01:04, Brett Stalbaum wrote:

>
>
> ——– Original Message ——–
> Subject: Debby and Larry Kline Art Issues
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:16:16 -0800
> From: Larry Kline <[email protected]>
> To: Full Focus <[email protected]>
>
> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
> We are contacting you to ask that you send a letter to Harper

Quoting [email protected]:

> Indeed – their attitude is reactionary: envy/disappointment + artists' ego
> transfigured (all too typically) into the expression of an overreaching
> desire to control… copyright? You can't copyright an idea, only the
> expression of an idea. (That's Copyright 101). Plus, the nature of artistic
> production has always made for repetition and redundancy. And that's a good
> thing.

And not only can you not copyright an idea, you can only copyright a *fixed*
expression of an idea. So performances, for example, cannot be copyrighted:

http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/11/performance_as__1.html

Too many artists are trying to pretend they have "rights" to deny other
artists
the freedoms that they themselves have built their careers on. Faking "rights"
over performances or art in the form of a box will not help future artists.

> (Write letters? They've got to be kidding.)

"Help us protect a right we don't have and that we may try to use
against you in
the future" isn't the best call to arms I've ever heard.

- Rob.