Reading this article in this specific week resounded quite well with what we had been discussing not only in the Communications Lab classes, but also in the GPC classes about the reproduction (or as I like to call it, the recreation) of art. In GPC, we examined Caravaggio and Rembrandt’s painting responses to the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham in Genesis 22. Both artists depicted their interpretation, or maybe you’d call it their response, to the scene when the angel stops Abraham just before he slits Isaac’s throat. Rembrandt’s painting, by virtue of it being done years after Caravaggio’s, could be seen as his response to Caravaggio’s work. However, we saw both works as different despite of their similarities because we examined both as the artists’ personal depiction.
Similarly, Joy Garnett’s image is considered a separate legal entity from the image by Susan Meiselas because it was not only produced in a different context from the original photograph, but also it was done with a different intention aimed at depicting the emotion rather than the individual or uniqueness of the subject. In my opinion, this is an example of a recreation of a work of art in such a way that it by itself is a complete new entity on its own. I believe Joy’s audience would still sense the feeling of “riot” she wanted to proffer had she used another image, or had Meiselas not asked for the original to be referenced each time the image is used by Joy.
And for that, unless an image is reproduced in its entirety (and even then, there’s a possibility of some creative process being employed in the process) for the sole purpose of making the original artist’s work available to an even greater audience, I think that the mere difference in time and intention makes whatever is being used a completely new piece of art, and thus the property of the one who created it.