I'm actually not sure who bloggy and Tyler Green are taking sides with in the Jack Pierson vs Barneys dustup. Barneys supposedly "forged," for its store displays, its own set of Pierson's "trademark" sculptures made out of found sign letters. Pierson is mad, and his gallery Cheim & Read wrote a pedantic letter to the clothier that stops short of asserting an actual intellectual property right but nevertheless accuses the retailer of a "fraudulent situation."
But given that those kinds of sculptures are commonplace--you see them in craft fairs, regional art shows, and T.G.I. Friday's-calibre restaurants--that's a bit like Duchamp writing an indignant letter to a urinal manufacturer. As long as the accusations of "fraud" are flying around, why doesn't Pierson have his gallery write an outraged screed to the stock photography company selling this royalty free image:
Or maybe sling a fraud allegation at painter
Leslie Brack while he's at it?
Yes, we are all going to hell.
Nope. No one's ever thought of that before ...
 
i think pierson got it from mary tyler moore. Around the time that Rhoda decided to move back to New York City (she married, then divorced Joe Girard) and Phyllis moved to San Francisco when her husband Lars died, Mary decided to move into a new apartment at 932 N. Weatherly. Of course, the first thing Mary did was to bring her large letter "M" which she kept in her old apartment and mount it in a place of honor on the wall of her new high-rise apartment.
www.threatmedia.com/site05/img/home/cover/2002_03/27-love_art.jpg
Maybe Robert Indiana should sue the asses off all them.
It's the scrounging of letters from different sources that makes Pierson's pieces unique. Well, not unique, 'cause lots of other people have done that. But unique in the sense that they "express the pathos underlying the American Dream -- a pathos embodied in the mismatched letters of old movie marquees and commercial signs from which his work is created... His found letters are, in a sense, discarded dreams, their original purpose long forgotten." The Whitney said that, and I think we have to accept its assessment of the ultimate seriousness and originality of the artist's project.
And whenever possible, we should stifle the free flow of ideas.
And micromanage every possible interpretation of our own work, including homage and parody.
well put tom.
how do you "own" a neo-da-da technique?
but! arnt you now defending something similar to commercial use of a popular song?
I thought you might ask that!
The difference here is what is sought to be protected is the technique, which is public domain at this point.
Pierson's gallery can't claim cutting up sign letters was protected by copyright, otherwise it would have.
Tyler Green used the term "trademark" but that's just a manner of speaking. Pierson might "own" the idea in the sandlot of artists, but outside that arena of professional courtesy it's fair game.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is it's not Pierson's best work, but he's effectively sheltered from any real criticism in the art world. So when Barneys "does" a Pierson, he suddenly sees it reflected back to him in all its derivative dumbness, stripped of the Whitney's supportive BS.
And he's mad, and gets his gallery to write a letter.
He should chill.
OK, I'm being mean--I guess I liked some of the sign pieces where Pierson used hostile language, but "Despair/Desire"? How different is that from "Fabulous"?
I actually love that "Nope" in the stock photo--it's very Ed Ruscha.
The gallery's attempt to differentiate the work by calling the Barneys pieces "formally weaker"--hello, this is supposed to be conceptual art. If a Barneys display is going to be anything it's going to be formally tight. Who cares about the formal qualities? Didn't Pierson get his start in an article called "Slacker"? Jeebus.
They're really just mad because this would be "bad form" in the art world's cozy society and they expect Barneys to play by the same rules.
"Tyler Green used the term 'trademark' but that's just a manner of speaking."
You are correct, sir. (And I should have been much, much more careful with my choice of words there!)
Maybe intellectual property issues should only count if it's a good idea. I think I'm serious.
Reminds me of the time Joseph Kosuth's pal sent a nasty letter to Jack in the Box...
I can't swear it's the same window, the NOPE in the shop window is in San Francisco on 16th St near the roxie theatre. They just move the N to spell OPEN or NOPE for closed. I haven't seen it in several years.
Also, there's an artist whose name I can't remember who paints (and makes prints) of movie theatre marquees and sometimes individual letters, but doesn't put them together into new words a la Pierson. It's been done, Jack.
... yup, Leslie Brack... and Joe Amrhein I suppose is guilty of some sort of derivation: www.pierogi2000.com/joe/images1.html
Hmm folks, whatever happened to "remix is how we live"?? see:
newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/03/appropriation_a.html
|
I'm actually not sure who bloggy and Tyler Green are taking sides with in the Jack Pierson vs Barneys dustup. Barneys supposedly "forged," for its store displays, its own set of Pierson's "trademark" sculptures made out of found sign letters. Pierson is mad, and his gallery Cheim & Read wrote a pedantic letter to the clothier that stops short of asserting an actual intellectual property right but nevertheless accuses the retailer of a "fraudulent situation."
But given that those kinds of sculptures are commonplace--you see them in craft fairs, regional art shows, and T.G.I. Friday's-calibre restaurants--that's a bit like Duchamp writing an indignant letter to a urinal manufacturer. As long as the accusations of "fraud" are flying around, why doesn't Pierson have his gallery write an outraged screed to the stock photography company selling this royalty free image:
Or maybe sling a fraud allegation at painter Leslie Brack while he's at it?
- tom moody 3-28-2006 4:59 am
Yes, we are all going to hell.
- anonymous (guest) 3-28-2006 6:25 am
Nope. No one's ever thought of that before ...
- mark 3-28-2006 7:37 am
i think pierson got it from mary tyler moore.
- bill 3-28-2006 4:57 pm
www.threatmedia.com/site05/img/home/cover/2002_03/27-love_art.jpg
Maybe Robert Indiana should sue the asses off all them.
- Thor Johnson (guest) 3-28-2006 7:21 pm
It's the scrounging of letters from different sources that makes Pierson's pieces unique. Well, not unique, 'cause lots of other people have done that. But unique in the sense that they "express the pathos underlying the American Dream -- a pathos embodied in the mismatched letters of old movie marquees and commercial signs from which his work is created... His found letters are, in a sense, discarded dreams, their original purpose long forgotten." The Whitney said that, and I think we have to accept its assessment of the ultimate seriousness and originality of the artist's project.
And whenever possible, we should stifle the free flow of ideas.
And micromanage every possible interpretation of our own work, including homage and parody.
- tom moody 3-28-2006 7:43 pm
well put tom.
how do you "own" a neo-da-da technique?
but! arnt you now defending something similar to commercial use of a popular song?
- bill 3-29-2006 12:12 am
I thought you might ask that!
The difference here is what is sought to be protected is the technique, which is public domain at this point.
Pierson's gallery can't claim cutting up sign letters was protected by copyright, otherwise it would have.
Tyler Green used the term "trademark" but that's just a manner of speaking. Pierson might "own" the idea in the sandlot of artists, but outside that arena of professional courtesy it's fair game.
My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is it's not Pierson's best work, but he's effectively sheltered from any real criticism in the art world. So when Barneys "does" a Pierson, he suddenly sees it reflected back to him in all its derivative dumbness, stripped of the Whitney's supportive BS.
And he's mad, and gets his gallery to write a letter.
He should chill.
OK, I'm being mean--I guess I liked some of the sign pieces where Pierson used hostile language, but "Despair/Desire"? How different is that from "Fabulous"?
I actually love that "Nope" in the stock photo--it's very Ed Ruscha.
The gallery's attempt to differentiate the work by calling the Barneys pieces "formally weaker"--hello, this is supposed to be conceptual art. If a Barneys display is going to be anything it's going to be formally tight. Who cares about the formal qualities? Didn't Pierson get his start in an article called "Slacker"? Jeebus.
They're really just mad because this would be "bad form" in the art world's cozy society and they expect Barneys to play by the same rules.
- tom moody 3-29-2006 1:10 am
"Tyler Green used the term 'trademark' but that's just a manner of speaking."
You are correct, sir. (And I should have been much, much more careful with my choice of words there!)
- Tyler Green (guest) 3-29-2006 4:39 am
Maybe intellectual property issues should only count if it's a good idea. I think I'm serious.
- mmbs (guest) 3-29-2006 4:50 am
Reminds me of the time Joseph Kosuth's pal sent a nasty letter to Jack in the Box...
- anonymous (guest) 3-29-2006 4:50 am
I can't swear it's the same window, the NOPE in the shop window is in San Francisco on 16th St near the roxie theatre. They just move the N to spell OPEN or NOPE for closed. I haven't seen it in several years.
Also, there's an artist whose name I can't remember who paints (and makes prints) of movie theatre marquees and sometimes individual letters, but doesn't put them together into new words a la Pierson. It's been done, Jack.
- oriane (guest) 3-29-2006 8:53 pm
... yup, Leslie Brack... and Joe Amrhein I suppose is guilty of some sort of derivation: www.pierogi2000.com/joe/images1.html
Hmm folks, whatever happened to "remix is how we live"?? see:
newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/03/appropriation_a.html
- joy 3-30-2006 6:17 am