image piracy Scandal or contemporary? Imagine, if you will, that photographer A knows the work of colleague B, who has been working for years on a long-term project, has received awards such as the Sony Award, and has been shown in exhibitions and has been published internationally. This known history should prevent photographer A from photographing pictures for his own series in the same way as photographer B in such a way that they appear confusingly interchangeable. Legally, that's one thing, but morally most artists would blush when the plagiarism could be be detected. But this is not the end of the story. Imagine that Photographer A takes his series to museum, which portends to launch a new era in photography, and that this museum, although it also knows the work of B, exhibits the entire series of A, despite the fact that is thoroughly familiar with the fact that these photographs are linked to those of B, the original author. The museum has no inhibitions and uses a photograph that is adjusted to resemble even more exactly the work of B, as advertising. A pirate tale one might think, but it is a bitter reality. This story is not an invention and not pessimism, but it represents faithfully what has just happened in Amsterdam. The Rijksmuseum reopened on November 1, and the Philips Wing of the museum presented in its new photography section an exhibition with the provocative the title, "Modern Times". The presentation of the collection includes "Document Nederland 2014 - The Netherlands - Belgium" with photographs by Hans van der Meer. In this exhibition at the Rijksmuseum three images by Hans van der Meer, photographed in 2014, are presently displayed that are similar in spirit and format to the works of Herman van den Boom who has photographed such houses since 2011. [dates of hvdm’s pix?] It is not the specific works of van den Boom that are at issue but rather his artistic conceptual overall project entitled "Arcadia Redesigned" that is the crux of the matter. The semi-detached houses have become his "trademark" through publications, exhibitions and awards. This established exhibition and publication history has prevented neither Hans van der Meer nor the museum from using these derivative images for their publicity purposes. The negative consequences for Herman van den Boom and his work are obvious. This photographic exhibition of houses imaged by Hans van der Meer and presented by the Rijksmuseum, linked by virtue of the museum's authority and through such authority whereby the images are to be considered apart of the collection, may further be shown and loaned to other exhibitions around the world, will now be considered as works by Hans van der Meer. Question: What does it mean for photographers and photography if a museum that wishes to create a special place for photography in the Netherlands, "where one can look on the medium of photography from inside and outside, where photography and its usages, is studied and documented, unlike any other European Institute, "(Photonews, no. 11/14, page 13) makes such an uninhibited use of photographers and photographic art? Is this supposed to be the way a museum represents artists and wishes to maintain its reputation? Of course, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is certainly unique and it has already achieved its unique reputation and, with it, a commercially valuable brand name in commercial market place. Yet, to allow an artist’s works to be knowingly misrepresented is scandalous! Anne Kotzan Info: www.rijksmuseum.nl satzbau@anne-kotzan.de www.hermanvandenboom.net foto van Herman van den Boom. 3 uur · Vind ik leuk · 1 Herman van den Boom foto van Herman van den Boom.
image piracy
BeantwoordenVerwijderenScandal or contemporary?
Imagine, if you will, that photographer A knows the work of colleague B, who has been working for years on a long-term project,
has received awards such as the Sony Award, and has been shown in exhibitions and has been published internationally.
This known history should prevent photographer A from photographing pictures for his own series in the same way as photographer
B in such a way that they appear confusingly interchangeable. Legally, that's one thing, but morally most artists would blush when
the plagiarism could be be detected.
But this is not the end of the story.
Imagine that Photographer A takes his series to museum, which portends to launch a new era in photography, and that this museum,
although it also knows the work of B, exhibits the entire series of A, despite the fact that is thoroughly familiar with the fact
that these photographs are linked to those of B, the original author.
The museum has no inhibitions and uses a photograph that is adjusted to resemble even more exactly the work of B, as advertising.
A pirate tale one might think, but it is a bitter reality.
This story is not an invention and not pessimism, but it represents faithfully what has just happened in Amsterdam.
The Rijksmuseum reopened on November 1, and the Philips Wing of the museum presented in its new photography section an
exhibition with the provocative the title, "Modern Times".
The presentation of the collection includes "Document Nederland 2014 - The Netherlands - Belgium" with photographs by Hans van
der Meer.
In this exhibition at the Rijksmuseum three images by Hans van der Meer, photographed in 2014, are presently displayed that are
similar in spirit and format to the works of Herman van den Boom who has photographed such houses since 2011. [dates of hvdm’s
pix?]
It is not the specific works of van den Boom that are at issue but rather his artistic conceptual overall project entitled "Arcadia
Redesigned" that is the crux of the matter.
The semi-detached houses have become his "trademark" through publications, exhibitions and awards.
This established exhibition and publication history has prevented neither Hans van der Meer nor the museum from using these
derivative images for their publicity purposes.
The negative consequences for Herman van den Boom and his work are obvious.
This photographic exhibition of houses imaged by Hans van der Meer and presented by the Rijksmuseum, linked by virtue of the
museum's authority and through such authority whereby the images are to be considered apart of the collection, may further be
shown and loaned to other exhibitions around the world, will now be considered as works by Hans van der Meer.
Question: What does it mean for photographers and photography if a museum that wishes to create a special place for photography in
the Netherlands, "where one can look on the medium of photography from inside and outside, where photography and its
usages, is studied and documented, unlike any other European Institute, "(Photonews, no. 11/14, page 13) makes such an uninhibited
use of photographers and photographic art?
Is this supposed to be the way a museum represents artists and wishes to maintain its reputation?
Of course, the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam is certainly unique and it has already achieved its unique reputation and, with it, a
commercially valuable brand name in commercial market place.
Yet, to allow an artist’s works to be knowingly misrepresented is scandalous!
Anne Kotzan
Info: www.rijksmuseum.nl
satzbau@anne-kotzan.de
www.hermanvandenboom.net
foto van Herman van den Boom.
3 uur · Vind ik leuk · 1
Herman van den Boom
foto van Herman van den Boom.
Eens, Gut gesagt. Zo is het maar net!
BeantwoordenVerwijderen