ScottMan2th In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 04:22:14 +0000 UTC]

Is collage even relevant as a technique in the face of digital tools that instantly paste content into almost every image we see?

We have to differentiate between the techniques and materials used in traditional collage and assemblage and those employed by digital means. Yes, digital techniques are faster and allow for mistakes to be corrected without damaging the rest of the image, so in some circles of thought might be considered cheating. This is (in my opinion) a bit presumptuous and narrow minded. Is Photoshop overused at times? No question of that. Just because you have 5,000 brush settings and three times as many filter settings does not mean that by using them all you will produce something brilliant. Knowing which ones to use, and having an eye and brain that tells you how to fit things together takes is where the artistic part of the equation plays a part. Using one form of collage does not diminish the skill or artistic talent of the other...both are useful.


What is your first reaction to the “is ‘found’ art really art?” question?

What appeals to me may not appeal to others…what I see as beautiful others might overlook or disregard without taking the time to focus on what might actually be there. Granted, found art can be dependent on many factors outside the control of the observer or the one who finds it, and the story related to the finding can be just as important as the actual piece. With that said, sometimes a chair with a bicycle wheel sticking out of its top is nothing more than exactly what it looks like.


Does the experience of the “meaning,” or at least your perception of a painting, being changed to a new perspective by added materials engage your mind in a positive way, or make you feel like what’s the point? Does too much relativity kill your soul?

When new elements or materials are added to an already existing piece, the inclusion should enhance the former without drawing direct attention to what was added. Some elements of juxtaposition can be too jarring to be effective, while other elements are to contrived or cliché’…the balance tends to be tricky. Relativity works nicely in physics, but when you mix in too heavy a dependence on socio-economic, or other hot button issues, my interest in your subject or opinion rapidly dwindles.



How would you feel if some of the plates fell off your very expensive Julian Schnabel “painting?” Would you first wonder if re-gluing them made the work somehow altered or bogus? Would you wonder first about insurance or resale value?

If I could afford such a work of art in the first place, it would because I liked the way it looked. Gluing the plates back on, would only horrify museum curators just short of apoplexy. I would set these broken plates aside an a smaller frame and display them just under the original. Now I would have a set of paintings rather than just one.


Do you have personal collages of friends and family? Did the placement of individuals’ pictures within the collage have any particular significance?

At the moment none of my personal work includes members of my family. Perhaps in the future this might change, but for now my work tends to be more abstract.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

reianne In reply to pinestater234 [2013-02-23 03:02:34 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you there. It is art because someone wants/created it to be art. Just like Duchamp's Fountain. Or some artists who make art by splashing paint on the canvas. The medium usually don't matter.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

pinestater234 In reply to reianne [2013-02-23 04:07:04 +0000 UTC]

It's interesting, though, that Dadaists, like Duchamp, are described as anti-art. I have to think about that for a while.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TryingJustHardEnough In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 01:11:57 +0000 UTC]

I used to think Collage as not an artform.
The very creation of collage was done after every expression was already exhausted [from renaissance-impressionism], the very idea of re-creating an image was no longer what the artist sought to do.. hence cubism.

One cannot really judge a medium unless they truly and fully understand it.

So, to understand collage, one has to FIRST understand every expression of painting; from Da vinci to Van Gogh. THEN understand George Brouqe/Picasso, and MAYBE then they will understand collage.

needless to say, i started to judge collage as a 'real' art form when u tried making one: Surprisingly difficult.

[Shown Here]
[link]

and again
[link]
deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

KeyboardingChihuahua In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 01:04:47 +0000 UTC]

I'm "meh" about collage. Some artist do make truly wonderful and beautiful ones, like ones of many many small pictures forming an animal or person, but in general, I'm not the biggest fan. I think having skill in painting, drawing, sculpting, etc, is not necessarily more artistic, but harder earned than the skill of assembling forms on a page. There is are a lot of highly acclaimed collages, that, I just don't think are that amazing. I think it's a bit of a hard topic to discuss, and will always be very controversial. A few years ago, in a school art class of mine ( a general one, so all the students in my class had to take it) one of the projects was collage, and it was pretty much, find pictures of crap you like in a magazine and glue them all over the page, along with some random objects. Rather disastrous results, really. It was only 7th grade, so, I know, most students didn't take it seriously at all, but even in the junior and senior classes at my school, few people are successful or a fan of collage.
I believe it's a form of art, but, it's in a whole different category than techniques like drawing, painting or sculpting. They can't be compared, they're just so different and have different standards.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

pearwood In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 00:58:06 +0000 UTC]

Glad to see *JessicaMDouglas 's work featured. I have thoroughly enjoyed her collages.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SerketXXI In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 00:54:55 +0000 UTC]

Is collage even relevant as a technique in the face of digital tools that instantly paste content into almost every image we see?
-I don't know, but, I always draw in paper wile in classroom.


What is your first reaction to the “is ‘found’ art really art?” question?
-Not amused.


Does the experience of the “meaning,” or at least your perception of a painting, being changed to a new perspective by added materials engage your mind in a positive way, or make you feel like what’s the point? Does too much relativity kill your soul?
-When I draw Euler, or other characters, in dying, my soul was too much kill (inspiration from film or TV look someone dying in hospital)


How would you feel if some of the plates fell off your very expensive Julian Schnabel “painting?” Would you first wonder if re-gluing them made the work somehow altered or bogus? Would you wonder first about insurance or resale value?
-I never visited, so I never look this painting, though. But, I will re-bill if this artworks was not seen.


Do you have personal collages of friends and family? Did the placement of individuals’ pictures within the collage have any particular significance?
-I have my big brother, now he's in collages in University. But I never draw about this. (I'm still in high school)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TryingJustHardEnough In reply to mysticpagan [2013-02-23 01:13:48 +0000 UTC]

lovely words and thoughts. check out mine [link]
and [link]

deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

neurotype-on-discord In reply to ??? [2013-02-23 00:41:22 +0000 UTC]

1 - the texture itself can be a part of experiencing the art. Considering that trad is still vibrant as a medium, I think the same applies to digital vs trad collage.

2 - I like applying this to the example of 'found poetry,' which is technically a derivative work in the pure sense that it's derived from something else. In general found poetry is treated like an other work of poetry with the added limitation of using a single source material. On this site, people get very creative about presenting and formatting it; compare [link] [link] [link] to [link] - either way, I think it's important to keep in mind the source material and build a relationship between that and the transformative work. Otherwise why make a collage when you could just create something fresh?

Too much anything kills my soul.

Hm, that's a tricky one. I don't know how this stuff works currently, but I'd hope to hell I had an insurance policy out, or could re-bill it as a work that is transforming itself.

I do not.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DeathRipper997 In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 23:58:05 +0000 UTC]

1. Yes, of course it is. You can feel, see, touch, smell collage, maybe with developing the digital art that will be possible even digitally but my personal opinion is that it isn't the same. Especially from artist's point of view.

2. Yes, it is. As long as it isn't a pure trace every artistic expression is art to me. Even if you take art of somebody else and add few tiny details. Of course, I don't think you should use that art for commercial purposes, even if it's collage. Imagine if you saw your drawing/painting/picture cut down and only a part of it displayed somewhere. You may like the art you see, but you'd be hurt because somebody just took the freedom to cut down the part of your art and use it.

3. Well, yes and no. I think the message that artist wants to send is contained in every piece of art, but it's sometimes hard or even impossible to gasp. On the other hand, I think adding 3D material to your painting is a nice touch. As well as artwork fully done by collage, it somehow seems like an optical illusion. It can have many hidden meanings that can even be connected with people whose pieces of face were taken or something.

4. I would feel as if re-gluing them would change them, but I'd do it nonetheless. I'd probably think of insurance first. I would hardly re-sell it, especially not just because it's damaged.

5. Nope, no friends or family.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SilverInkblot In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 23:37:59 +0000 UTC]

How dare you not include Joseph Cornell boxes in here somehow

My big assignment this year is going to be making a collage. Collage is a way to organize all the mental junk we accumulate. I literally just wrote an essay on this topic in relation to Count Zero, so here's a relevant quote instead of a ton of discussion:

"You are the thing that Virek seeks, aren't you?"

No. He imagines that he can translate himself. code his personality into my fabric. He yearns to be what I once was; What he might become most resembles the least of my broken selves . . .

"Are you -- are you sad?"

No.

"But your -- your songs are sad."

My songs are of time and distance. The sadness is in you. Watch my arms. There is only the dance. These things you treasure are shells.

"I -- I knew that. Once."

But now the sounds were sounds only, no forest of voices behind them to speak as one voice, and she watched the perfect globes of her tears spin out to join forgotten human memories in the dome of the boxmaker.

"I understand," she said, sometime later, knowing that she spoke now for the comfort of hearing her own voice. She spoke quietly, unwilling to wake that bounce and ripple of sound. "You are someone else's collage. Your maker is the true artist. Was it the mad daughter? It doesn't matter. Someone brought the machine here, welded it to the dome, and wired it to the traces of memory. And spilled, somehow, all the worn sad evidence of a family's humanity, and left it all to be stirred, to be sorted by a poet. To be sealed away in boxes. I know of no more extraordinary work than this.

Personally, I love the idea of found art. I like the notion of re-contextualizing things and forging something new from scraps. I like it because there's meaning within the collage that the artist put there, but you have to bring your own to the table. Collage is a very collaborative art form.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

GawrilaGhul In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 23:35:35 +0000 UTC]

I just have to say three things about collages...
, , and !

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DA-AuoraVirus In reply to GawrilaGhul [2013-02-23 03:20:37 +0000 UTC]

That icon of yours makes me feel weird.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GawrilaGhul In reply to DA-AuoraVirus [2013-02-23 20:17:12 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Grishhak In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 22:57:50 +0000 UTC]

1. Is collage even relevant as a technique in the face of digital tools that instantly paste content into almost every image we see?
--> The same could be said for nearly all traditional artforms. But I think that a traditional collage is something different from a digital one, exactly the way an oilpainting is different from a digital painting. Both need considerable skill to be good, but actually making them differs a lot. I really prefer painting traditionally because of my hands getting dirty, to tell the truth. I enjoy that very much and I can think much better this way, so I think that maybe it is the same for people who do traditional collages.
Also, I don't think that the purpose of creating a collage is to "paste content into almost every image we see". The reason I do a realistic painting isn't because I can't afford to have a photo taken because it would be much quicker!


2. What is your first reaction to the “is ‘found’ art really art?” question?
--> I think of the parts of a collage in the same way I think of my pencils. I bought them, so in a way I "found" them. The skill in drawing with pencils is drawing, not owning a pencil. The skill in collage is getting everything together, not finding it.


3. Does the experience of the “meaning,” or at least your perception of a painting, being changed to a new perspective by added materials engage your mind in a positive way, or make you feel like what’s the point? Does too much relativity kill your soul?
--> Depends. I prefer a good collage to a bad painting. Adding material to a painting can be a good idea, or it can be used to distract from a bad painting. I've seen both, so I really can't answer that question.


4. How would you feel if some of the plates fell off your very expensive Julian Schnabel “painting?” Would you first wonder if re-gluing them made the work somehow altered or bogus? Would you wonder first about insurance or resale value?
--> I'd never buy something so expensive, really. I'm willing to pay an artist for his work, I'm not willing to give all my money for something that expensive So if something fell of of my imaginary Julian Schnabel, I'd giggel till I'm out of breath because he didn't glue it on so that it stuck. (BTW, maybe it was meant to fall off? )


5. Do you have personal collages of friends and family? Did the placement of individuals’ pictures within the collage have any particular significance?
--> Yes, because one big frame is less expensive than 20 small ones and also needs just one hook instead of 20
But I wouldn't call that a collage, I call that "collection of pics of friends and family" because it's not meant to be art, it's meant to show people dear to me. Calling something like that art (unless it was put together with artistic goals) imho actually lessens the meaning of art.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

techgnotic In reply to makepictures [2013-02-22 23:07:20 +0000 UTC]

Are you referring to the Picasso's that you have in storage or the pieces hanging in your residence? How often, if ever, do you bring visitors to enjoy your art collection that is in storage?

Would you at least instill some artistic intent into your decision regarding which article from the day's paper was chosen?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

makepictures In reply to techgnotic [2013-02-22 23:36:31 +0000 UTC]

If a piece of newspaper fell off one of the ones in storage it would as if a leaf fell in the forest.  As for replacements, I would pick the latest snarky and snotty art criticism available essentially everyday in the New York Times.  Isn't the whole point of collecting great art keeping it away from the public? Even the top museums only show 5% of their holdings. They understand the problem well.  If you let the public see all of the art their heads would explode - - and this would be cruel and heartless.  Better to protect them by keeping it all as private as possible.  Some people, of course, can handle it but they have been desensitized by holding Phds in curatorial studies and such.  They are real pros.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Alislinn In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 21:57:34 +0000 UTC]

At primary school I used to do them a lot!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

UniversalDragon In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 21:14:27 +0000 UTC]

Just another medium like pencil or paint, we use it to express ourselves. Now if it was just thrown on and not thought about at all then ya it's just junk

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

PaperDreamerArt In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 21:09:19 +0000 UTC]

It certainly can take you back to those days of kindergarten, when you cut out magazine pieces and glued them down into a portrait using your best childhood imagination. It was easy then, but as grown-ups we know randomly slapping stuff together usually makes one big mess.

I believe it is a skilled art and if done with a certain amount of talent, can create some of the best artistic and thought provoking images.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

techgnotic In reply to SanIakob [2013-02-22 20:27:27 +0000 UTC]

I will be sure to take your advice for all future articles.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BrekanArts In reply to techgnotic [2014-04-25 08:53:25 +0000 UTC]

Great article.  You should have included a living master...     

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CapnDeek373 In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 20:04:16 +0000 UTC]

Just saw some nice ones hanging in one of the local Brooklyn pubs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rojpix In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 20:03:02 +0000 UTC]

yeah sure do... go here there are some of mine (mixed in with paintings too) [link]
was it Matisse who said the simple tearingness of collage??

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BrekanArts In reply to Rojpix [2014-04-25 08:47:27 +0000 UTC]

Matisse is my man.  He and Picasso made my career legit.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

faeorain In reply to ??? [2013-02-22 19:47:24 +0000 UTC]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. I think the way any piece of art will affect me is based on the individual work itself, so the answer will never be exactly the same. Frequent over analyzing of people's work or process is more apt to kill my soul.
4. This one makes me laugh just thinking about how I'd ever be able to afford such a piece, but I'd probably think of it as perhaps part of " the process "... An art piece that changes over time. If I did have a bottomless wallet, I'd never buy art for investment value.
5. No. I don't do collage because I don't feel I'm very good at it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MyBurningEyes In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-25 17:17:09 +0000 UTC]

If you actually make an artwork that's unique (or up to a max. of 50 or 100 pieces. Varies per country if i'm correct.) the copyright wont apply unless it's reproducable. (like a digital collage etc.)

If you make 1 painting of let's say something like George Bush, it won't be copyright infrigment. If you try to sell prints out of that painting, it will be copyright infrigment. It also is copyright infrigment if you make the same painting more then 50 times. (Although it never can be actually the same, it still works that way odd enough)

The hot item nowadays is whether anything can actually be original anymore since we can 3D print whole paintings perfectly and scan and print them on canvasses aswell. But that's an other subject

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BrekanArts In reply to MyBurningEyes [2014-04-25 08:46:43 +0000 UTC]

Yep. it wasnt until I started making coffee mugs and t-shirts Mattel sent me a "cease and desist" letter.  For my Love Affair With Barbie series (2001) Google "My Love Affair With Barbie, Brekan" for details. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

meganbednarz In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-25 16:35:41 +0000 UTC]

A long time ago, when collage was first invented, they actually had a legal battle about just this topic. The verdict was that simply the act of collage altered it beyond its original intent as art. This is all from memory, I'm sure you can research more about that online, but the question has been asked and answered before. It may need to be answered again, in the light of digital collage (such as defining what is "published" and available for use).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

StandardOperation In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-24 04:42:08 +0000 UTC]

Fair use. You should look it up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BrekanArts In reply to StandardOperation [2014-04-25 08:43:00 +0000 UTC]

EXACTLY!  That's what my lawyers say every time!  If you don't want to deal with lawyers ans A-hole corporations, DONT DO COLLAGE.  You're too thin skinned to do collage if a lawsuit worries you.
 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

makepictures In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-22 23:47:29 +0000 UTC]

I wish I could reply to everyone else who commented to you on your question but the deviantART commenting system doesn't allow for that.

Collage has been and remains a challenge to copyright law.  In the United States their are decisions in both directions both finding that a collage use is an infringement and finding that a collage use, even though an infringement, is a fair use and excused under the law.  One of the leading cases involved Jeff Koons.  [link] It's surprisingly easy to understand the court's opinion even for non-lawyers.

This is his painting: Show Images  and this is the photograph he used: Show Images

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

meganbednarz In reply to makepictures [2013-02-25 16:44:14 +0000 UTC]

That's a really great reference, thank you for the post.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

partofmysoulindeath In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-22 23:02:08 +0000 UTC]

depends if the images used are public domain or private images. anytime you take an image just check the copyright, and if unsure include the original source of the images, even if just including the name and edition of the magazine or other sources you used.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

rotane In reply to Stormartic [2013-02-22 20:09:47 +0000 UTC]

Good question. Well, the good old™ phrase of "whatever isn't yours, isn't yours to take" doesn't seem to apply here (I can spot the Mona Lisa up there, after all). But i don't know why not, i don't know the answer. I'm sure there is no "end all be all" answer either.

Is it "fair use"? Is it okay until the owner files a DMCA takedown notice? "Giving credit", as someone mentioned, surely isn't the proper way around copyright.

Anyway, i think this would make for a good follow-up article.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

faeorain In reply to rotane [2013-02-22 22:26:46 +0000 UTC]

Well, at least as far as the Mona Lisa is concerned, it would be free to use because it has long since been out of copyright.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

rotane In reply to faeorain [2013-02-22 22:40:20 +0000 UTC]

It's a little more complicated than that, actually. Back when the Mona Lisa was painted, there was no such thing as "copyright law". But of course, the copyright would've ran out by now (since the painting is 100+ years old). However, someone much more recently took a photograph of the painting and holds the copyright to that photograph. If you wanted to use this photograph you'd need to get permission by the photographer. There might be photos of it being put into the Public Domain by the photographer of course. But as you can see, it's not always that simple – even for a seemingly simple case

👍: 0 ⏩: 2