Homework 4

Art can evoke so many different feelings, so judging another person's work to decide whether it is protected under fair use is going to be very difficult, especially since there are many artists who engage in the transformative use of existing images. Although Appropriation and fair use are very similar, appropriation deems to have a more negative effect to it. Both Appropriation and fair use are very sensitive to work with for artists, so it is very hard to analyze when brought in a court case.

There was one concern that I had regarding the court's decision. It is said that the court found most of the works by Mr. Prince to be permissible under fair use because they “have a different character” from Mr. Cariou’s work, giving it a “new expression” and employing “new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct.” However, they then decided that five other works were not considered fair use by a reasonable observer so they were sent back to the lower court for a determination. I wanted to know, like Brian Boucher, who would be considered a "reasonable observer?" Like I said earlier, there are so many different aspects to analyze and so many artists who are in the same position, so how would the court go by this?

I think the matter should be focused on making sure the appropriation of an artwork has good intentions. This can be unlimited, as long as it does not provoke a negative connotation that mocks the original work on purpose. So even if it did not "add value" or transform it in a way, I don't believe one should be sued and put in court. With that, it is up to the artist to articulate his intent. On the other hand, although this is very important, I don't really believe in having to explain your artwork. Like I said in my other homework post, an artist creates art simply because they feel compelled to. But if that art is brought under court, THEN it is something that needs to be explained on.