DSLRUsers.com

As usual. Shot this one the way home from work. I was pretty annoyed too. Some bastard deliberately tossed a bucket of water out the window to hit me. While the backpack got a bit and I got a lot. The Camera was unharmed.
Street Art, Graffiti, Hosier Lane, Melbourne. C&C as usual, most welcome.

Little Red Riding Hood


Psychedelic Fox


Day of the Dead

Shame about the idiot with the bucket of water, but I really dig the photos they don't come across as graffiti rather awesome art! That said I'd like to see some shots which put them in context with their environment.

I think I know that chap in the last image. He's a senior member of this forum.

Nigell, welcome. Nice series, 3 is my favourite due to the more complete picture of the graffiti. Shame about the water, I hope you wailed up an earful of abuse at his window.

Matt K, you are dead right! I recognise that bloke.

Matt. K wrote:I think I know that chap in the last image. He's a senior member of this forum.

I agree that this is art and the pics are great - colour is superb.

One of the things I love about Melbourne is the Street art

I have been thinking about how to take shots of it for quite a while. The dilemma I have been having is how do you make the image not look just like a photo of some graffiti?

I think you have achieved what I have been trying to get my head around.

Nice shots: I love the fox! BTW, pictures like this which are close to just being reproductions of someone else's art sometimes open up distressing "conversations" about the rights and wrongs of uncredited "copying" someone else's work.

I'd agree with Craig: shots including some of the context of this work would be interesting. Not only because they could be interesting images on their own merits, but also because they can avoid the above issue.
On a subtle level, the lines across the fox shot are a hint of this...

Dave you found the words I lacked at the time I posted my first reply. My comments on seeing the shots more in context were leading up to the copyright / reproduction issue, but I felt opening with that straight out of the gate could of been a little full on.

If this ”art” is in public view and deemed graffiti (writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place) then there would be absolutely no problem with copyright.

What you are saying is that every piece of art on public view (in the open) is copyright, and therefore should not be photographed without written permission of the artist - if so, hang up your camera and take up knitting

Chris - I'm less concerned about the legality of it, and rather the moral aspect, that said I've been guilty of the same thing when shooting sculptures and reliefs, so I'm no better.

No I'm not saying that you shouldn't photograph it.

But the question of creativity comes up: how much of "your" photograph is your own work and how much is the work of the graffiti artist? There's not necessarily a question of right and wrong in this, but it is something worth thinking about.

Dave

I photograph nature - some would say that’s God’s work
I photograph buildings - some would say that’s the work of an architect
I photograph people - I suppose that’s God’s work again

ad nauseum

Basically, whatever we photograph it becomes a record of the past, to be treasured or trashed but 90% of the time we could attribute what we photograph to the endeavour of someone else in its creation.

You’ve guessed it - I have no morals

sirhc55 wrote:I photograph people - I suppose that’s God’s work again

I have to disagree with you there. Y'see, when a man and woman love each other, the man puts his.......


Anyway, I tend to agree with you. If there are no restrictions taking photographs of an object, whether it be considered art or not, I have no moral objection to taking a photograph of it. I also don't see what the practical issue is. If I take a photo of a sculpture, graffiti or any other work of 'art', I can hardly pass it off as my own (given dimensions, physical context, etc).

P

Reschsmooth wrote: If I take a photo of a sculpture, graffiti or any other work of 'art', I can hardly pass it off as my own (given dimensions, physical context, etc).

P

Patrick,
Once you've captured it on film or digitally, what is stopping you from passing it off as your own ? Selling it at the markets, on stock sites, or in a gallery even ?

I'm more concerned over the end use of such a photo, rather then that the photos was taken in the first place.


Edit : Perhap this discussion it better moved elsewhere out of the thread.

While I'm a strong believer in protecting the rights of artists, that's not necessarily the point I was trying to make!

In fact if you wanted to go down that path you'd have to consider the transient nature of much grafitti: by taking the photos you're helping to preserve the art!


Maybe I've been involved in too much Art analysis (note the capital A ) recently but I was pointing out that the fox image seemed stronger to me, and maybe that was partly because it stood out as more of a piece of "art" whereas the others might be described as being more "reproductions". I'm not saying that everyone's brain is going to consider the same things of course...

This doesn't mean that Nigell shouldn't have taken these photos or shared them with us here!

Alpha_7 wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote: If I take a photo of a sculpture, graffiti or any other work of 'art', I can hardly pass it off as my own (given dimensions, physical context, etc).

P

Patrick,
Once you've captured it on film or digitally, what is stopping you from passing it off as your own ? Selling it at the markets, on stock sites, or in a gallery even ?

I'm more concerned over the end use of such a photo, rather then that the photos was taken in the first place.


Edit : Perhap this discussion it better moved elsewhere out of the thread.

Craig, what I was referring to was the taking of photos of either 3 dimensional objects or other pieces of 'art' which are obviously a recreation of said art.

But, the other question is (and I don't have my own answer for this, yet): if the person did try to sell the photo of someone else's artwork, is the purchaser buying the first artwork or the photographic artwork? Which leads back to Chris' rhetorical questions, I guess.

Cheers

P

Just a side note to this, one of my mates is a street artist....

He makes his living (or at least part of it)
creating a stencil
spraying that stencil onto a wall
taking an image of it at that point in time.
Printing the image then selling those prints.

This seems like a round about way of selling the image but the context of the street art is allot of the time part of the art form. EG when a stencil artist "Improves" a billboard, including the billboard in the overall piece.

I say if you are going to make money from it imagine you created the "Art" how would you feel if someone else was making money from it

olrac wrote:Just a side note to this, one of my mates is a street artist....

He makes his living (or at least part of it)
creating a stencil
spraying that stencil onto a wall
taking an image of it at that point in time.
Printing the image then selling those prints.

This seems like a round about way of selling the image but the context of the street art is allot of the time part of the art form. EG when a stencil artist "Improves" a billboard, including the billboard in the overall piece.

I say if you are going to make money from it imagine you created the "Art" how would you feel if someone else was making money from it

Is what he does legal? I ask because I don't know if there is a legal distinction between 'street art' and graffiti.

When you say he sprays it on a billboard, do you mean an outdoors advertisement that someone else has paid to advertise their product and may have their own issues about someone capturing an image of that billboard for commercial purposes?

Unlike a gallery, which persumably acts as a form of agent for the artist, does he pay anyone to display his 'artwork' in a public place like the street?

Like I said, I ask because I don't know.

But I wonder, if you take a photo of a 400 year old sculpture/statue that is in a public place, and sell postcards/greeting cards with that image, do you or should you have to pay royalties to the trustee of the artwork?

P

P

A couple of things I want to say here. I did and do, have a moral pang given the idea that I photographed someone's art. Here is how I see it, One of the hardest things you can do is capture graffiti in a way that really gives it credit. More often that not graffiti works on the "whole" rather than the "part" which is what makes it so hard to capture as cameras by and large only ever capture the "Part". If I can manage to capture it, then I think of it as the preservation of an image rather than 'my' photograph. The other thing is that this art, for that is what it is, is transitory in its nature. It will almost certainly be gone in a few weeks or months replaced by something else. The fact that my capturing it has recorded it for at least my life time I think is a good thing. Still the point is valid. I would gladly give credit to the original artist, I think of myself as a documenter of it, rather than owner of it.

Nigell wrote:A couple of things I want to say here. I did and do, have a moral pang given the idea that I photographed someone's art. Here is how I see it, One of the hardest things you can do is capture graffiti in a way that really gives it credit. More often that not graffiti works on the "whole" rather than the "part" which is what makes it so hard to capture as cameras by and large only ever capture the "Part". If I can manage to capture it, then I think of it as the preservation of an image rather than 'my' photograph. The other thing is that this art, for that is what it is, is transitory in its nature. It will almost certainly be gone in a few weeks or months replaced by something else. The fact that my capturing it has recorded it for at least my life time I think is a good thing. Still the point is valid. I would gladly give credit to the original artist, I think of myself as a documenter of it, rather than owner of it.

Nicely put Nigell, I hope this little debate doesn't put you of posting some more photos Looking forward to seeing more of your work.

Nigell wrote:A couple of things I want to say here. I did and do, have a moral pang given the idea that I photographed someone's art. Here is how I see it, One of the hardest things you can do is capture graffiti in a way that really gives it credit. More often that not graffiti works on the "whole" rather than the "part" which is what makes it so hard to capture as cameras by and large only ever capture the "Part". If I can manage to capture it, then I think of it as the preservation of an image rather than 'my' photograph. The other thing is that this art, for that is what it is, is transitory in its nature. It will almost certainly be gone in a few weeks or months replaced by something else. The fact that my capturing it has recorded it for at least my life time I think is a good thing. Still the point is valid. I would gladly give credit to the original artist, I think of myself as a documenter of it, rather than owner of it.

Spot on

Alpha_7 wrote:Nicely put Nigell, I hope this little debate doesn't put you of posting some more photos Looking forward to seeing more of your work.

Nah, the debate was valid, so I have no problems with it. And I will be sharing more of my stuff.

Nice captures Nigell.
Love the colours and art work in these shots.

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy.

Cheers, Mick

Very well put Ngell,
Good work as well.
Regards Colin