Response to On the Rights of Molotov Man

In the article the confliction between the originality of an art piece and the freedom to adapt an art piece was intense. To justify her right to adapt the photo, Joy Garnett in the beginning of the article stressed the point that she created her paintings after deliberately forgetting the context. I personally feel that this argument was flawed because even though Joy intended to adapt the photo solely on her understanding, it was her responsibility to credit the photographer Susan Meiselas before publishing. After all, the audience has the right to track back to the originality of the art piece and form their own understanding of the context.

On the other hand, I believe that if credit appropriately, Joy Garnett has every right to add her understanding into the adaption of the photography. Every artist has the right to express his or her opinions in their artworks, but no one can force the audience to interpret the writings according to the artist’s original desire. Differences and distance exist between the artist’s mind and the audience’s interpretation, which reveals the possibility that the audience are actually the ones who “create” the art work. So there are adaptions that the original artists would like to see, like the animated classic paintings below:

This Guy Animated Classic Paintings And The Results Are F**king Beautiful

And there are also adaptions that the original artists may not like..

LOL-Hilarious Animations Bring Famous Classic Paintings To Life

Anyway, the originality of an art piece and the freedom to adapt an art piece are not always in odd, especially when artists are more careful in crediting.

Leave a Reply