Lady Gaga has a new suit. This one is not made of meat.
from hyperallergic.com: > Lady Gaga has been accused of plagiarizing from many artistic sources: Canadian-Ukranian artist
Taras Polataiko, New York performance artist
Colette, and Canadian artist
Jana Sterbak, to name a few. But now someone’s finally going the extra step and suing her.
That someone is French artist
Orlan, and she’s asking in French court for a whopping $31.7 million, or 7.5 percent of the profits from the Gaga album
Born This Way
and the video for the song of the same title. Orlan’s suit “accuses the
singer of stealing from her to construct the visual universe” of the
album, according
Artinfo. What does that even mean? Artinfo
asked Orlan’s lawyer, Philippe Dutilleul-Francoeur, that very question. He responded:
Not
only did Lady Gaga reproduce works by the artist, but she also drew
inspiration from her concepts. Orlan’s entire universe of hybridizations
was copied in the “Born This Way” album, such as giving birth to
oneself, which is seen in Orlan’s photography series “Orlan accouche
d’elle-m’aime” (1964-66). The inspiration went too far."
and here are some of the comments:
Owen: This topic should be taught in colleges. Paul Beck caught some heat for
the Radiohead video for the song Nude. The video sampled and reworked
war footage and twisted it into a satirical intense animated social
commentary. cool video see hear:
http://vimeo.com/68723683
"I Love Lucy" episode:20 "Lucy as
Sculptress" i954(?) uses the device of Lucy's head projected up through
a card table as sculpture to Maria Ambromavic using it as the table
decorations for LA MOCA's Gala. Lucy did it first.
-
Yes, the "head on a table"
imagery is not new. I seem to recall a 3 Stooges episode where Curly"s
head appears on a platter. Can we draw a distinction between intention?
"Comedy" is different than the theme of "re-invention," even though the
same imagery is employed. So how many sources does Gaga have to sight
and/or award payment to? This is a situation that will only continue to
expand. I believe I have a right to use themes and objects that I
encounter within a public environment in my work. And, since the
internet is now part of my public environment the possibilities for
stepping on other's creative toes expands exponentially (with or without
my knowledge of those toes.) "Forgery" is absolutely wrong and using
this term in this case, I believe, hurts their chances in court.
"Pastiche" is not illegal just not considered as interesting as
"original" work, but who has ever created something from the vacuum of a
mind unexposed to anything else in their environment or history.
Perhaps Gaga should pay Orlan something, then Orlan can pay Hieronymous
Bosch and his estate can pay whoever it was first told the story of
Salome receiving the head of John the Baptist on a platter.... and don't
forget Curly.
-
I think it is important to follow
repro- respect. If you are inspired, if you share a large visual
component from another artist then you need to ask permission. Same with
rights for a production of any theater performance. If you are going to
engage with a concept it assumes you are changing and adding and being
self reflexive in a way that is obviously critiquing or commenting the
piece of art. Gaga didn't credit Orlan. She wasn't saying something new
by adding it to her video. I don't know if this was intentional. But
Gaga incriminates herself a bit when she discusses the deliberate and
intentional nature of her daily performativity. I have sympathy for
Orlan. A media outlet like Gaga's is huge. Orlan being an artist spent a
lot of time and energy raising the funds to create and present her
project in a way only not-for- profit or freelances or individual
artists can understand. Often larger media outlets have law on their
side when underground artists share/ mix music etc. Its a relief to see
Orlan's artistic integrity protected for a change. Pop culture is an
artform when used properly can subvert our way of thinking about
mainstream media and capitalism- Warhol is a great example. But if Gaga
did intentionally take this from Orlan then it feels a bit like 1%- big
business exploitation.
-
Thank you GC for taking a stand
that is not cynical and stands up for artistic integrity even in the
face of the oft misused "genius steals" aphorism. Your position is rare
these days and gives me hope.
-
If anyone has ever kept up with
Lady Gaga in the media, she has always been very clear about who she is
referencing. A big part of her act is the appropriation of pop cultural
history. DUH! We have seen her take on Madonna, David Bowie, David
Byrne, Leigh Bowery, Queen Elizabeth I, everyone. Orlan, you're a visual
artist. Leave the thievery to actual thugs.
-
A meat dress, a head on a table,
facial prosthetics -- none of these are new ideas. Gaga didn't invent
them. Neither did Orlan. They were all done by Dadaists and
Surrealists in the '20s and '30s... and probably painted by Hieronymous
Bosch before that.
-
Well if you look at a lot of Orlan's images, it's obvious that she "borrowed" from African tribes people..
-
Not insinuating that Gaga is a
genius or anything, clever at the most honestly, but they do say "Talent
Borrows. Genius Steals". But honestly, this doesn't look like straight
up forgery to me, no one would confuse an Orlan piece with a Lady Gaga
music video. I honestly think she knew of these concepts, was inspired
by them, and used them to market herself and her music successful. I
really get the feeling that the artist's are seeing her massive success
and wishing for the tons of money she has for using very similar
visuals. But, as much as I would honestly want to, call it a forgery.
(Granted these are successful artists, but there's a difference between a
successful contemporary artist and a household name like Gaga.)
-
I feel like this legal argument
raises a series of questions on the nature of "forgery," regardless of
the specifics of Orlan's case. Does the act of forgery necessarily need
to be intentional? If, let's say, Gaga came up with her artistic
concepts in a vacuum (I have no idea if she was previously aware of
Orlan's work but it seems likely that she was) could she still
theoretically be a forger? Does forgery imply trying to pass off the
work as actually BEING the original, and if so, would that also extend
to trying to pass off the work as being actually BY the original artist?
Does a successful forgery or reproduction need to achieve a certain
high level of resemblance to the original such that, say, a layperson
would not be able to tell the difference between forgery and original?
If so, I would say that Gaga's works are clearly NOT successful
forgeries, as nobody would be likely to actually confuse the two works.
They seem to fit more closely within the legally permitted parameters
for appropriation in the US. "Forging concepts" seems impossibly vague.
Concepts, as opposed to individual works of art or very specific ideas,
seem to me to be wide open for interpretation, expansion, or expression
by others. That's how human beings communicate.
I'm very curious to see what other people think, and how this unfolds in court.
-
That was what I was thinking,
too. I don't see how this meets the legal definition of forgery if she's
not trying to pass off the sculptures as the work of Orlan. I thought a
forgery was when someone makes a Picasso-like painting, signs it
Picasso, and try to sell it to an unwitting buyer as a genuine Picasso.
No comments:
Post a Comment