this is graffiti art-

http://www.cruelvapours.com

Good point! And while you’re at it maybe let other people decide what music you’ll like and what food you ought to like as well.

Fine art isn’t like food or music.

You’re making a faulty comparison.

Most Americans directly experience and evaluate food at least twice a day for their entire lives. They’re perfectly capable of deciding what food they like and what food they don’t like. That is, they have the *experience* to make those decisions for themselves.

Same goes with music. People listen to music day in and day out, they’re flooded with it on the radio and wherever they go. They have a lifetime of *experience* to decide for themsleves what is good and what is bad.

Most people don’t visit a muesum and consume fine art twice a day. Most people aren’t surrounded by fine art in their personal lives. Most people have little to no experience in judging fine art.

In that way, fine art is more akin to molecular chemistry. People don’t presume to make decisions about whether compound X is a good or bad molecular compund. They defer to an expert. Molecular chemists.

You seem to be saying everyones powers of aesthetic judgment are equally good. So then there’s no need for designers or architects or artists, because everone’s judgment is equal and correct?

That’s my basic argument. Making good aesthetic judgments takes time, training and experience that most people don’t have.

Did you pick up the camera and start shooting brilliant shots right from the start? Or did it take you some time and experience to start making better decisions?

What I’m saying is that oftentimes great art is created by borrowing from other art and that I consider this more important than copyright.

That makes more sense, thanks. I certainly agree with the idea of adaptation… as long as it’s not outright ripping off.

No, the quality of the photographer should not determine the level of protection. It should apply to all equally.

What I’m saying is that oftentimes great art is created by borrowing from other art and that I consider this more important than copyright.

I appreciate you addressing my post, although I don’t particularly agree with the above sentiment either. Correct me if i’m wrong, but that seems to suggest that only ‘good’ photographers deserve the right to have their work protected.

I didn’t necessarily mean support in the context of ‘endorsement’, more when it comes to issues such as the right to take photographs in public, the right to post your photos on flickr and NOT have them ripped off by some prick in another country and re-sold without permission.

These are all issues you’ve voiced strong opinion on in the past.

Now on the subject of vandalism, you are arguing for the recognition of grafitti as ‘fine art’… which I whole-heartedly agree with. Some of it is truly fantastic.

But that being said, I cannot say I support something that infringes on the rights of others. There’s no ‘grey area’ here as far as i’m concerned. If you steal a photo from someone and re-sell it, that’s theft, and copyright infringement. It doesn’t matter whether the photographer is horrible or world-renowned.

If you permanently mark something that you don’t own… regardless of who else owns it, it is vandalism, which infringes on the rights of property owners.

I know i’m probably not going to convince anyone who has already made up their mind on the matter… But I have to voice my opinion here. I just don’t get it when people put the rights of some over the rights of others. To me, it’s a double standard.

Thanks for reading.