Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello Art, I did use the word "sacrilegious." But please don't take it out of context. I wrote, "For me, this BORDERS on the sacrilegious. At the very least it's disrespectful." I'll stand by that. Of course, whoever owns a work of art can do whatever they want with it, including using it to sell something. I run a classical music radio station. Ad agencies use classical music every day to sell things, but in my opinion, every time a piece of music or art is used in this way it cheapens the original. It erodes the reputation of the creator. Beethoven didn't write his Symphony No. 9 to sell telephone answering machines, and Eisenstaedt certainly didn't create that photograph so that Dell could sell more computers. Isn't it appropriate that those of us who have an interest in art should defend the works of Beethoven, Rembrandt, Eisenstaedt... against this type of misappropriation? Are those who utilize and manipulate these works of art for commercial purposes within their legal rights? Of course they are. Does that make it right? I don't think so. Dave Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil wrote: > Oh, c'mon! There's no shame in this, no prostitution. I think the > original writer used the word "sacrilegious." Give me a break! No > one is "Butchering Eisenstaedt." His pictures, like those of Adams > and Cartier-Bresson and other great photographers are reproduced in > books and hung in museums and always can be. That one of them gets > used in an advertisement (as, for example, we've all seen the "Mona > Lisa" used) may be tasteless, but so what? Life's often tasteless, > and business and advertising have nothing to do with art. It's not > as if the sole, existing print of this photograph had been defaced. > Ted even wrote of being offended, but certainly no offense was ever > intended, and none need be taken. Life's too short! > > Art Peterson > Alexandria, VA