Incredibly bad: on the difference between paintings that look bad and are bad.

23rd November 2015 

Matthew Bowman has given us a speech today about bad and good art based on his research. He presented numerous examples of ''Bad'' art mostly featured by ugliness, malicious and despicable style. Majority of those paintings contained elements of kitsch, irony, protest and shocking, imaginable perspective. They seemed to be a manifest of their own badness, possibly with hidden meaning and consideration. However they weren't very eye pleasing.
The Museum of Modern Art in Vienna celebrated those painterly freaks in 2008, setting an exhibition entitled ''Bad Painting - Good Art''. It has collected artworks from the 1920s till beginning of 21st century; to surprising or truly shocking, sensationalist, reactionary solutions. It brings examples of twenty-one artists to represent ''bad paintings'' as a phenomenon which has opened to different perspectives in art by using traditional medium and criticising previous approaches (especially modernist utopia). It's an opposition to the doctrines of classical modernism and avant-garde movements, playing with the medium and the subjects, turning into unexpected, darker and ugly approaches. It questions aesthetics in art. It also surely influence somehow on contemporary practice. I think it may tries to show value of kitsch and anything that used to be worthless, even artists skills in some cases, I suppose.

Asger Jorn
 L'Avantgarde se rend pas (1962)

André Butzer Frau
 Ölauf Leinwan (2002)

I think that Bad Painting can be a good art (such as E. Manet's ''Olympia'' from 1863, which was declared as really bad and inappropriate at first and then became a masterpiece). Judgements of art highly depend on viewer's taste and cultural sensitivity, time and place the art is displayed or simply the knowledge necessary to understand it and bring out its deeper meaning. Knowledge supports our judgement and can change our impressions. I'm sure it happened to everybody, while walking into the gallery or museum, to see an artwork not appealing to us at all. We then ask ourselves, what is this thing doing here?! It shouldn't be classified as art, it's simply a piece of crap. Well I have experienced that quite recently, remembering the trip to Tate Modern in London and some work in the ''Collection Display. Making Traces'' exhibition.

Catalogue cover (2008)

Before modernism appeared and questioned the nature of art, bad painting equalled to be a bad artist. Painting and sculpture art were separated. In 1980s postmodernist anti-painting supposed to revolutionise art once again, I recon (deconstructive approach against ''good painting''). It was something different and made you look. Anything modernist had rather happy approach, while bad painting seem to be darker and rather creepy. There is a difference between paintings that are bad and those which just look bad. However I don't think it's a perfect theory. In my opinion there is some sort of general aesthetic that majority of people can label as bad or good. Although nothing is possibly more subjective (opinions). Facts are objective, but who make them? Who put these artworks in a canon of bad or as being a masterpiece and marvellous? It's usually up to what critics say about it or possibly other authorities in the past... maybe general opinion... However I think its purely individual choice to categorize that. It can be often wrong due to lack of required knowledge (like in the example of red paintings where the appearance is identical, but intensions are different and so, some of them are classified as art and some aren't). I think the most important thing in the classification is actual feeling the art piece reveals in the spectator, while additional information about it is excluded. I disagree that the only thing to make a painting good art is meaning behind it.

I really like Thomas Kinkade's Disney collectible paintings. I think it takes a great skill to create such canvases and they're fantastic aesthetically, but there isn't any deeper meaning behind them. I still would give them an art status. ''Thomas Kinkade captured the timeless magic of classic Disney stories and their captivating characters through the style of “narrative panoramas”. Each painting tells the entire story of a Disney film in one image, taking inspiration from art, sketches and other historic documents from the Disney Archives.'' (Thomaskinkade.com, 2015). I like how magic, detailed and colour live they are. They're also so recent! Tradition in contemporary times once again.

Cindarella



Cinderella 2015

Tangled

Beauty and the Beast

Andy Warhol's pop art sculpture ''Brillo Box'' (1964) caused quite a bit of controversy in the 1960s. The artist has decided to use very ordinary, consumer-product related imagery and turn it into sculptures. For this reason he hired carpenters to make him some wooden boxes which he then covered with paint and silkscreened logo (he made few different ones:  Kellogg's corn flakes, Brillo soap pads, Mott's apple juice, Del Monte peaches and Heinz ketchup). Then he created installations and exhibited them in the museum. He also wanted to sell them to collectors as stacks, but it haven't gone well. Considered as art it caused a lot of controversy with its commercial subject, reminding products on the supermarket shelf and perfectly factorial look, contrasting with sensitive abstract expressionist paintings. In this case I think its very sensual matter. Even the general look was very similar, the actual art object by Andy Warhol surely felt differently and if compared, it would be easily identified.

Andy Warhol
Brillo Box (1964)

''We were having a fairly heady discussion about art, religion, and culture by the time we climbed onto the fifth floor and breathlessly approached the Brillo Boxes. There my thoughts wandered from connections between religious icons and pop culture to a small closet in my kitchen where I have a similar box, crumpled and rusty, stuffed between the Windex and the Comet cleanser.

In all my years of scrubbing with sponges, mops, steel wool, I have rarely stopped to notice the packaging. I just ripped the boxes open and started my work. But these elevated Brillo Boxes show me that we are surrounded by art. It lines the aisles of our supermarkets. It decorates our homes. It festoons our trash bins: pungent red, flashing yellow, telltale white.

My pantry is now a gallery and my chores interactive art.''

Reverend Gail Ransom, East Liberty Presbyterian Church quoted for The Point of View Label Project, The Andy Warhol Museum, 1999.

“[The boxes] were very difficult to sell.  He thought that everyone was going to buy them on sight, he really and truly did.  We all had visions of people walking down Madison Avenue with these boxes under their arms, but we never saw them.”
Eleanor Ward, art dealer: Stable Gallery, in Warhol by David Bourdon, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. (New York, 1995), p.186.


Read more at warhol.org: http://www.warhol.org/education/resourceslessons/Brillo--But-is-it-Art-/#ixzz3txT2SIug

Martin Kippenberger (1953–1997), German contemporary artist was very important persona influencing Matthew Bowman's research. Kippenberger was known for his very creative and innovative approach in wide range of styles and media and artistic provocateur (sometimes called 'Deutschland’s Andy Warhol'). There were few examples of his work that I have found really interesting, such as ''One of You, a German in Florence'' (1976-77) which consisted of 83 paintings that put on the top of each other would equal painter's height or ''Lieber Maler, male mir…'' underneath.

Martin Kippenberger
Untitled. Lieber Maler, male mir… (Dear Painter, paint for me...) 1983
Oil on canvas

 

The painting is based on a photograph and it well looks like a photograph itself (photorealistic approach). It is part of a twelve paintings series, one of the earliest and most important works of the artist. It represents back perspective of two almost tragi-comic looking figures, heading on a bar crawl through the streets of Düsseldorf. It's great demonstration and clear identification of Kippenberger's style; ordinariness of the scene and extraordinary manner of representation as a slick hyper-realistic oil painting. The artist commissioned it to be made for him by the film poster painter known as 'Mr Werner'. It's a strong statement about Kippenberger's self-identity and it emphasizes its authenticity (purpose and method of making). It reflects, possibly more than any of his other works, his life style of constant movement in life and in art, by changing locations and questioning artistic conventions. As any of human being, author's gaze is restricted with the mirror image to identify himself, so he becomes a participant of his own art. It's really interesting way of self-expression.

 

Martin Kippenberger
Heavy Burschi / Heavy Guy 1989/90
Installation view at Tate 2006

Private collection

Martin Kippenberger questioned the role and existence of the author and it is also considered throughout his other artworks, such as ''Heavy Burschi'' or ''Model Interconti''. In the first case artist presents an idea of author's death and gives his installation status of ''double kitsch'' (Jubilee Centre, 2011). His creations are mostly made out of borrowed commercial art and copied as paintings by his studio assistant while dissatisfied Kippenberger trashed them all and they were then displayed in the wooden container in the gallery besides photographs of the same series placed on the walls.

Kippenberger bought a 1972 grey abstract painting by Gerhard Richter and transformed it into a sculpture, a table. ''Model Interconti'' is considered a masterpiece of contemporary art. But there is now quite an issue with the authorship. Under the German law Kippenberger supposed to be sole author of the new work. However what about moral rights for Richter? It is quite complicated and I read an interesting text about it online at http://artasiapacific.com/Magazine/64/ModelIntercourse. He has questioned here the art market and cleverly critiqued social connotations between artworks. 

Martin Kippenberger
 Model Interconti 1987
(table made with Gerhard Richter painting)
Collection of Gaby and Wilhelm Schürmann

This lecture has shown me that good painting is not necessarily visually pleasing and opposite. Bad looking art, clearly pointing into its badness, can be often a great art manifesto. However to give this status to an artwork, I think I usually judge mostly aesthetically and ethically. I think that's the first thing a lot of people do - decide if they're visually pleased with an art and if it talks to them, making a connection. The other time the artwork could be pointed to particular audience or send a message the viewer won't like, but if it's good painting, that won't change (it reminds me again of Manet's ''Olympia'' that was banned at first, only because the lack of critiqued by a painter society's approval).




I have also find some more facts about Bad Painting in America and another art exhibition curated by Marcia Tucker in New York, where paintings were only ironically called ''Bad''.


"Bad" Painting is the name given to a trend in American figurative painting in the 1970s by critic and curator, Marcia Tucker (1940–2006). She curated an exhibition of the same name, featuring the work of fourteen artists, most unknown in New York at the time, at the New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York. The exhibition ran from January 14 to February 28, 1978. "Bad" Painting was not a demonstration of technical incompetence, poor artistic judgement, amateur or outsider dabbling, the term is commonly used for these. For Tucker, it denoted a more focused or deliberate disrespect for recent styles. The press release for the exhibition summarised "Bad" Painting as ‘…an ironic title for ‘good painting’, which is characterized by deformation of the figure, a mixture of art-historical and non-art resources, and fantastic and irreverent content. In its disregard for accurate representation and its rejection of conventional attitudes about art, ‘bad’ painting is at once funny and moving, and often scandalous in its scorn for the standards of good taste.’ Her use of quotation marks around "Bad" points to this special meaning. "Bad" here, is thus a term of approval for the more eccentric and amusing variations on certain accepted styles, at that time.

(Wikipedia)





Resources:

Artnet.com, (2015). artnet Magazine. [online] Available at: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/saltz/saltz3-20-09_detail.asp?picnum=7 [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Bowman, M. (2015). Incredibly bad: on the difference between paintings that look bad and are bad.

Gallery, S. and Gallery, S. (2015). Martin Kippenberger - Artist's Profile - The Saatchi Gallery. [online] Saatchigallery.com. Available at: http://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/martin_kippenberger.htm [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Huma3-archive.com, (2008). Exhibition in Wien: Bad Painting - International Art Portal Huma3. [online] Available at: http://www.huma3-archive.com/huma3-eng-reviews-id-313.html [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Jubilee Centre, (2011). Outside the frame: Postmodern art by Anne Roberts - Jubilee Centre. [online] Available at: http://www.jubilee-centre.org/outside-the-frame-postmodern-art-by-anne-roberts/ [Accessed 21 Dec. 2015].

Tate.org.uk, (2015). Martin Kippenberger. [online] Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/martin-kippenberger [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Thomaskinkade.com, (2015). Disney Images | The Thomas Kinkade Company. [online] Available at: https://thomaskinkade.com/art-genre/disney-images/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

Warhol.org, (2015). warhol: Brillo: But is it Art?. [online] Available at: http://www.warhol.org/education/resourceslessons/Brillo--But-is-it-Art-/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2015].

KOYAANISQATSI 'Life out of balance' by Godfrey Reggio and the team

23rd November 2015 

 

Today I've seen quite unusual movie called KOYAANISQATSI (1982) by Godfrey Reggio (producer and creative director), Ron Frickle (photography) and Phillip Glass (music). It was the longest movie with no words I have ever seen and an amazing journey through the world history from its very beginning until now. II think, it was all about taking a journey, not really about its exact destination. It took six years and lots of effort and expense to create the film, but I agree with the producers that it was well worth it.  

The title was taken from Hopi language and it could be translated as 'Life out of balance'. This film is defined as postmodernist critique of existing world, where one way of life always calls for another. The production is extraordinary for many reasons. It describes indescribable, it doesn't have formal narrative or cultural baggage, as it has non-literate form. It goes beyond words and it's breaking the boundaries of traditional cinematography. The music and imagery are employed instead, to build the atmosphere and story allowed to be created in viewer's mind (which is intended by the authors).  It was made by an enormous team and it has as many authors as spectators, because we're all involved in it as we watch. It's up to us how we experience the subject. I also find it amazing because it was created through very complex and rather difficult process with pre-digital, analogue cameras. The production builds an emotional connection with the audience through rapidly changing sequences, through eye contact between the viewer and the characters, turning points, such as moon shadowed by the skyscraper or apocalyptical city buildings collapsing.

It was also quite spiritual experience, it was like looking at the world from behind the scene, from different perspective, possibly from God's perspective. I think, the concept related to cave paintings (from very basic stage of human kind) or maybe also to biblical act of creation.
I've noticed that during first twenty minutes there isn't any appearance of human at all. It has got a frame of the same image and music (identical in the beginning and in the end; some sort of cave painting and meditative singing). As we've listened to a few words from creators afterwards, it was inspired by very universal symbol of an 'eye in a triangle' (a signifier of God). Generally it gives national feel and it can be universally translated. It shows how fragile our life is, how constant is cycle of life and its essence. It relates to numerous aspects of living, such as ecological issues and technological progress, mass culture or art. It's a peculiar contemplation of life. We never really know what it can bring.

Movie creators didn't know what the outcome is going to be straight away. There is an aspect of Dolce Vita ('Sweet Life'), but also threat of life, injustice, dramatic changes, explosions and loosing control. It shows everything within human life and technology. Reggio states that everything, such as politics, education, language, the culture, religion, finances, nations exists within technology; we live technology. Well... that's where human destined himself... through progress to the world we live in now. Technology indeed took over big part of our lives, but I disagree that everything exists within it. When thinking of a title, I reckon it was a good choice and great concept. It forms its universal character and together with lack of words during the movie, describes indescribable. I think the point gets across with considerate collage and dynamic juxtapositions of images and music.

Poster: Conor Culhane (2015)

Before the human kind appears the 'KOYAANISQATSI' film seems to be a bit boring and tiring for the viewer; scenes are repeated and monotonous. I think the first twenty minutes and some of urban movement in later stage could be slightly reduced to possibly become more interesting from the beginning, right to the end. That's the only thing I would change a little bit. Besides I think it's an amazing production! It's for anybody, it's universal and relates to anyone, to any human. It's like an artistic sight of world existence, a physical visual form of its history. Changes in imagery and a plot are identified by music coordinated with movement and emotions. There are sequences easy to separate. It made me think of continuousness and crumbliness of life. The beginning is all about nature and its power shown from very different angles, shown alive and changing speed. It's about development of towns and cities; its about The Beginning.

After first twenty minutes of the movie I got actually a bit bored and impatient at first. But the first impression has changed and my overall overview gives it a masterpiece status. There're rocks, islands (earth), mosaic of fields (it seems like you swimming while looking), clouds rapidly or very slowly moving (feels a bit like flying in the sky), water, explosions (fire). So there are all four elements of natural power. In about twenty-second minute proper image of people appears (couple of minutes before it would be just human shape). They're looking high up on the glass skyscrapers reflecting the clouds, looking quite surprised, happy, wondering... Then we've got an aeroplane appearing in very hypnotic way, busy urban landscape and age of cars, human masses and all of it was like short-lived illusion. Afterwards there is a war... tanks and rocket exploding into the galactic space... and then city again with its enormous buildings. Three men sitting on the street and others just passing through time to time. Now it reminds me of God a little, as being one but in three persons. And generally I have started to think of it as we were shown God's perspective in the movie... especially after seeing a bit of inspiration from the authors - the eye closed in a triangle (symbolic).

There's beautiful semiotic language applied all the way through the film. Wind, shadows, flock of birds flying there and back, symbols of period of particular times in history. There's a very apocalyptic view of collapsing cities, fog and clouds uncovering birth of new ones. Life goes back to the cycle... American life style (day and night cycle, street lights show, music and image speeding up in final time-laps, 'rat race'), machinery, manufactories and distribution, underground rush again, consumerism and first appearance of computers (it feels like people are marionettes played by time). More cars, subways, lifts, buildings, products... Although I've said before that the movie is universal, it's very accented by American culture, especially nearer the end while the flag is exposed. It goes through the tunnel of news and TV invention, through different styles and subcultures, modernism. Two men sit in the car and seem to move towards the future. 1hour 3 minutes - the first time movie is completely silent for few seconds, before an anxious music continues.

The most influencing and touching moment was to get into an eye contact with some characters. Suddenly viewer feels observed and it becomes almost 3D motion. Really striking for me was seeing a man shaving his beard randomly in the middle of the pavement (looking towards us as into his reflection in the mirror) or quite old woman intensively smoking a cigarette. Afterwards shadows appear and it starts snowing, but it looked a bit like someone was ripping a piece of paper. In the end a rocket explodes again into space for a little while and then it falls slowly back down in blue background firing gently again. The emotional piano music has followed the contemplative singing bit.

Class and Society

16th November 2015


Today's lecture 'Class and Society' by Sean O'Dell has shown class categorization and changes in society considered from middle of the nineteenth century to the present.
From the beginning of our kind there appeared people with more skills or will for domination. In every society there are examples of better or worst assimilation and managing skills. For numerous reasons some of us do something better than the others. It's also our human nature to be competitive in some way. Unfortunately this differentiation became a necessity to develop verbal and written classification. Even if we don't really want to look at society as categorised classes and treat everyone equally, it just simply comes out anyway with some signifiers, such as clothing, profession, family background or attitude (which sometimes can be really distasteful). There is also self-definition and what other people think of us - both not necessarily the same. I think the class can change and its more (than any other time in history) dependant on people in the twenty-first century in Europe. Unfortunately again, money rules a large sphere of life, everybody needs them (survival) and surely most people want them (decencies and luxuries), being affected by extremely growing consumerism.
We still perpetuate the class system. We make easy judgements, often applying labels and stereotypes to others, by engaging classes behaviour. There is constant reinforcement of class in the TV, media, advertising and education (school dressing codes; private schools and ordinary ones).

Typically in the nineteenth century classes very driven by occupation (capitalist class, upper middle class, middle class, working class, working poor, underclass). In Karl Marx's view there was only two classes: capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and working class (proletariat) while anything else was completely irrelevant. Together with Frederick Engels he wrote 'The Communist Manifesto' (1848) in order to destroy capitalism and bring out a new system called socialism. In 1913 the class system was recognized by an analysis of skills and then updated again in 1987 with much more detailed (but not really used practically) definition.

Socialist propaganda poster (Poland, 1951)

The middle of the nineteenth century is also a birth of avant-garde. Some avant-garde movements such as cubism (revolutionary approach that appear fragmented and abstracted in art) for instance, have focused mainly on innovations of form, others such as futurism (Italian movement that aimed to capture in art the dynamism and energy of the modern world), De Stijl (style of art based on a strict geometry of horizontals and verticals) or surrealism (movement of artists and writers who experimented with ways of unleashing the subconscious imagination) have had strong social programmes.




John Everett Millais
Christ in the House of His Parents (‘The Carpenter’s Shop’)
1849–1850
Oil on canvas

The above painting 'Christ in the House of His Parents' by John Millais shows very radical Victorian avant-garde style (an example of Pre-Raphaelites symbolic realism), depicting the Holy Family in Saint Joseph's carpentry workshop. It's very ordinary and messy and it dramatically contrasts with any previous paintings (critiqued by society). It was an artistic attack of established Victorian Church and the whole social system. Jesus is a young boy who has just injured his left hand (in the centre) showing it to his mother Mary. There is also another young boy carrying a bowl of water (Saint John the Baptist), Saint Anne and one more young man, possibly one of the twelve apostles. It's very symbolic (a white dove sitting on the ladder signifying the Holy Spirit and Resurrection, flock of sheep behind the main scene - laity, solid wooden workbench looks like an altar - Crucifixion). The triangle on the wall, above Christ's head, symbolises the Holy Trinity.

Ford Madox Brown
Work (1852–1865)
Oil paint

Ford Madox Brown's painting shows importance of the working class (in the centre). It was controversial, because bourgeoisie - two men riding horses are placed completely on the back, in the shadows. Both of the painting above were commissioned by Thomas Plint (an important Pre-Raphaelite art collector).

Edouard Manet
Olympia (1863)
Oil on canvas

Edouard Manet
The Luncheon on the Grass (1862)
Oil paint

More controversial artwork of that time would definitely be Edouard Manet's paintings above. This French painter was one of the first 19th-century artists to paint modern life (firstly in the spirit of realism then translated into impressionism). 'Olympia' and 'The Luncheon on the Grass' both caused a lot of controversy. First one here ('Olympia') was a nude of a woman (modelled by Victorine Meurent). She's laying on a bed and black fully dressed servant brings her flowers. Her body and gaze are very confrontational what makes it really intense. She seems relaxed although she covers her pubic area with her hand and there are indicators of prostitution, accenting her nakedness, courtesan lifestyle and sexuality (an orchid in her hair, a bracelet, a ribbon around her neck, slippers). The flowers, upswept hair, orchid and black cat were all symbols of sexuality of the time.
'The Luncheon on the Grass' was another painting of critique for bourgeoisie society and challenging social order. There're two fully dressed men and a naked woman between them (and another one beside them), which was very inappropriate and disturbing for the viewer. Both of those paintings raised the issue of prostitution and the role of women within contemporary French society. There were several changes in societies and several critiques by upcoming art movements. Appearance of Dada wave brought a breakdown in perceptions; they considered how society should be seen.

Thomas Cantrell Dugdale
The Arrival of the Jarrow Marchers in London, Viewed from an Interior (1936)
Oil on canvas

This work by British painter and book illustrator, Thomas Cantrell Dugdale, has shown bohemian young aristocrats and socialites in 1920s London (called Bright Young Things/People); an insight and another critique of society. Elegant, not bothered, enjoying the urban centre minority of people (appeared in the press a lot), contrasted by many poor Jarrow Marchers.

El Lissitzky
'Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge' (1919)
propaganda poster, Soviet Russia
 

El Lissitzky, Russian artist, designer, typographer, photographer and architect who utilised very important in graphic design principles of simple geometric solutions, primary colours and basic forms. His designs contained/informed strong political statements. He identified the graphic arts and architecture as an effective tools reaching masses. He also followed supremacism (concept of Russian artist Kazimir Malevich of harsh, almost mystical abstractions).


Joost Schmidt
Bauhaus exhibition poster (1923)

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century modernism influences on industrial societies. New social housing scheme is taken into reality, apparently equal for everybody. Changes continued radically during and after the Second World War. Female society develops, together with their growing and more equal rights. We go through Cold War period and communism. After the war power in society was reversed and due to shortage of labour professions became more important. Now capitalist class was more dependant on working class. There is constructivist imagery in Russia like propaganda poster I have looked on during Matt Bowman's lecture: Alexander Rodchenko's Dobrolet Airline Poster (1923, lithograph) reminding society that knowledge is power (it's still perfectly significant today in the 21st century).

Henry Moore
Grey Tube Shelter (1940)
drawing

In 1960s new consumer society appears in some parts of Europe. Pop art movement took over in the creative industry. Young people didn't struggle with getting a job (full employment in Britain; golden age) and with reasonable amount money in their pocket they could afford to go out or spend money on other things. Many subcultures, such as hippies or punks have developed and so their dramatically changed self-definition (youth culture). The working class was growing. It was a beginning of post-modern world of consumerism.

Roy Lichtenstein
'Newsweek' magazine cover (1966)

Barbara Kruger
Untitled (I Shop Therefore I Am) 1987

Crisis? What Crisis?
The fourth album by progressive rock band Supertramp (1975)

In my opinion recognizing society's groups (classes) is a necessity. Unfortunately. For graphic designers triadic system is definitely enough for its definition. Also unfortunately, statistics and case studies today show, that (there was a research including thousands of interviews) family background and education is significant to the class and can make things more difficult or easier. There's a 'class snobbery' as well, which makes some people think they're far more important than everybody else In the world; thinking that their money make them better and above all. On the other hand there're rich, wealthy people, who don't really like show up themselves in that way. There's a possibility to go up or down the middle class and I think it's the matter of luck or personal choice. Sometimes people can be capable of a lot, but they just choose not to do anything to improve their lives, due to simple laziness, lack of self-confidence, determination, money or ideas, personal problems etc. It all surely sort of depends on our family background, situation in our home and upbringing from early years, values and interest shared in the closest environment. Society was always classified and it won't change... However we are all equal humans and we all have the same rights... and nobody should forget this simple fact.








Resources:

O'Dell, S. (2015). Class and Society.













.

Visual Analysis in Art and Design

Visual Analysis in Art and Design


WHY?

- to learn more; to gain better, deeper understanding of the work,
- to help form an opinion based on knowledge and understanding,
- to form an objective

HOW?

A four-stage process, or 'method':

1. Simply describe whet you see (visual inventory, list); don't try to put meaning.
2. Describe how it makes you feel; your initial, first reaction (it can change).
3. Describe what you think the artist/designer meant you to think or feel/ how we're supposed to react; what's the intention.
4. Look for the context of the work - this may lead to further research into the work of the artist/designer (context, background, who's behind it, ethical policy, audience, views, who's the artist).  


Process of looking and seeing can be sometimes much easier, if we undertake a visual analysis of painting, poster, sculpture, graphic, drawing etc. It is definitely helpful, along with a bit of research, when we're not sure what the artwork is all about. It helps to put some attention into details and to start guessing and describing what we see without any extra knowledge about particular piece.
It's possibly worthy to mention, that I have done it before (over seven years ago) with a lot of different artworks, mainly paintings (as being pure visuals, they're possibly best choice for this exercise). That was when I have finished my education in Poland with final exams called 'Matura'. I was actually the only person in the entire school choosing history of art as additional subject for the exams set. I got very good results then and it always makes me smile to think of it. I was writing it in the library that only I could access that morning, three hours long with three examiners and a bodyguard outside the door. Quite a funny view for myself I have to say. It felt great... recognizing numerous paintings in National Gallery in London, that I have visited a few times. It's an amazing feeling to see its physical original form, its real scale, to be able to smell the paint in a way. It was very exciting to see Van Gogh's 'Sunflowers', one of my favaourite painters. I was also a bit surprising as I imagined it to be a bit bigger. I guess that's confusion to its copies and reprints. I had one in my bedroom too... It reminds me of the exhibition I have seen last month in the Minories Gallery, Colchester. The artwork presented was often bought very cheaply in the superstore or reproduced. The original, remarkable masterpieces loose their values and possibly become trashy in that case. However I think no reproduction can really give similar impression to the original work, that holds its history and value in the museum or someone's house of wealth.
Going back to the visual analysis... I am going to put an example of one we have done during the seminar with our tutor Sean O'Dell, to remember its principles.






William Holman Hunt
The Hireling Shepherd (1851)
Oil on canvas

1. 

young man and woman sitting on the field (grass and flowers) in the shade of trees, by a river or lake (girl has no shoes on),
a shepherd neglecting his flock in favour of an attractive country girl; he's showing her a moth (placing his arm around her shoulder),
one sheep wanders over a ditch into a wheat field,
one lamb sits on woman's lap, covered with her red dress, surrounded by apples,
countryside, possibly midday or morning, summer

2.

it's intriguing, a bit weird and uncomfortable, not very romantic,
contrast of sheep and its purity with sexually positioned subjects, suggestively,
quite ambiguous response of the country girl; her body language is rather negative towards the shepherd, but facial impression seems a bit opposite; not sure,
it looks like a snapshot, it's dynamic,
shepherd is definitely completely ignoring his flock, his duties (they were hired temporarily; young, careless lad; where he laid his hat that's where his home was),
it reminds Adam and Eve Bible scene

3.

artist tried to send a moral message to his audience,
watch your sheep, look after your duties; one of them is crossing the boundary; men is also pushing the boundaries (similarly to his sheep),
apple=sin, lamb=innocence (possibly also signifies girl's virginity), symbolic,
guy=predator, wolf-like, it looks like he's haunting on her, invades her personal space, he's got obvious intentions,
whole situation seems uncomfortable, destroying natural harmony of the scene,
hypocrisy, lack of moral values; complicacy or possibly scepticism (interpretation of girl's reaction)

4.

Hunt used a local country girl Emma Watkins as a model,
showing problem of prostitution at the time,
Avant-garde group wanting to change society,
crossing boundaries on daily basis,
critique of Victorian Church and churchmen, bishops of England no looking after their 'flock',
critique of the middle class,
artist gives clues but he leaves some thing uncertain, so the viewer can read it independently,
intellectual, analytical art
moral message, emotional response,

The Politics of Looking

Today Dr Matthew Bowman gave students very interesting lecture about politics of looking divided into two sections to consider: Aesthetics (seeing and knowing) and Politics (looking and power).

First part introduced in details process of looking and seeing. We always see things as something depending on a concept, location and surely a personal experience and knowledge. That's the reason why some imagery, such as photographs or paintings can be seen completely differently. There was an example of two photographs of a woman ostensibly looking the same, but in fact they had different meanings and intentions. One of them supposed to be an artwork and the other one not. Personally I didn't spot a major difference between them. However I think it's also all about the circumstances around the work presented to be seen as art. It reminds me of Marcel Duchamp readymades objects (for instance, his "Fountain" 1917). It became a piece of art by placement in gallery setting and signed "R.Mutt". That's how a common urinal became an icon of twentieth century art.

Sometimes we look, but we don't see, because our mind may drive us somewhere else. We also make conscious and unconscious selections of what we want to see. Some things become boring with everyday routine, publicity or they just don't catch our attention. Sometimes we don't chose not too see, but we just don't give it enough time or attention. We tend to make first impression opinions without getting into closer details and insights. Looking isn't always seeing and seeing cannot happen without good observation. We scan the world around us, we recognize and we make sense of it (cognition). Sometimes we need extra knowledge and it can change our perception. For example if we've never seen or heard about pen or fork in our life, we wouldn't be able to guess its function.

Matt Bowman was telling us about a mind experiment using canvases painted purely with red, looking exactly the same. Spectators weren't able to rationalize or make sense of it without given context and extra information. One of them supposed to be primary, simple coating; the other presented Red Sea and escaping Israelites; the third one was an expression of anger and passion. Seeing is also cultural and it can develop subordination issues (placing in lower position, hierarchy).
What happens when we look at things? It's our everyday biological activity to see objects, people, movement, possible narrative. Firstly it's an overall view, first impression (happening very quickly, in seconds), which then becomes a form of cognition. First impression/experience is extremely vital for perceptions, process of gaining actual knowledge.
Thinking about it, it reminds me of personal cinema/world of film experience in aspect of language differences; originals and dubbings (most commonly for Disney or DreamWorks projections), I have noticed that some movies I've seen for the first time in Polish don't really amuse me as much in English and vice-versa. It's the voices I got used to and enjoyed listening to. Other time, rather rarely, it happens I actually appreciate the new, unknown before option.
Once we know and see something, we immediately and intuitionally identify it. We don't tend to look much more around it, what sometimes causes erroneous understanding. Everyone can struggle with professional names time to time, but still being able rather simply describe, recognize and categorize (like Jasper Johns' flag with stripped off colour). Blind people who lost their sight after years of looking are able to see with their hands, with touch in some way...
I really liked an ambiguous image of duck/rabbit publication shown during the lecture. Both animals could be simply seen separately, but I was actually able to see both in the same time after observing it deeper (however not as easily).

Duck/Rabbit Illustration
published in 23 October 1892
 issue of Fliegende Blätte

As I've mentioned before, first impressions are not always truthful. Light sculptures, 'Afrum'(1966) and 'Moab'(2001) by James Turrel, makes a trick on our brains which can see a physical, solid object while artist only creates clever light projections. Similarly to Bridget Riley's optical art giving an amazing visual impressions, but not showing truth to our eye. During the war, camouflage was used with similar intention, creating fictional, conspiratorial landscape solutions.
Being a graphic designer demands extra attention and sensitivity to the process of looking/seeing. It's noticing, making connections and decisions, finding context, semiotic language - parts of complex process of constructing visual information. The ability of seeing counts a lot in visual arts. It enables to get inspiration and builds an aesthetic sense, which approves satisfaction and self-realisation.




James Turrel
Afrum I (1966)

 

The second part of the lecture has started with Marcel Duchamp's artwork showing door with two holes. He surprises the viewer with unexpected image hidden within the hole view of a naked woman, fallen on the ground and holding a lamp. He embarrasses the viewer in some way, makes us unsure if we should look at all. He uses elements of control and manipulation, which is very relevant to graphic design. Our designs, components of image and words, have influence on their audience. Awareness of that make us more responsible and hopefully it encourages fidelity of own moral values.

Our self-identity can be strongly affected by politics of looking. The reflection we can see in the mirror every day is incorrect (in the wrong order). It's untruthful and it only gives a guideline of our own appearance. We cannot ever really see ourselves one hundred percent the same as everyone else around us. That's why we're looking for familiar reflection of ourselves to build  self-identity (also called 'selford'). Our subjectivity (i.e. sense of self, sense of who we are and not just how we look) develops and changes. Cindy Sherman is a good example of artist who uses self-portraits in her photography by assuming movie characters in particular situations. She undertakes a peculiar examination of herself.
By looking in the mirror and making refinements or taking 'selfies' (mirror stage) on the phone we're positively reinforcing own identity and building self-confidence. We're looking for authority figure. Sometimes we want to be or look like someone else, often even unconsciously we replicate parts of styles or behaviours. We learn from each other, we like to identify some of it with others. We look at advertisements... and a lot of the time many of us blindly believe that all of it is true.

An interesting fact here is also evolution in human's vision. Little babies and children have limited eye sight. In the first stage of life they can only recognize their mother, their view is indistinct and blurry. Newborn baby sees only in black and white and shades of grey. Their ability of vision isn't fully developed. Infant's eyes are noticeably big (apparently 65% of their adult size), not very light sensitive and unable to accommodate (focus on near objects). One week after birth infant can see some colours (red, yellow, orange, green). It's more difficult to recognize blue or violet, because of fewer colour receptors in the human retina for blue light. That's the reason for first book for children being black and white or with very limited colours. Having my own personal experience I also know that infants eyes are very dark, almost black for first few days and the proper colour develops then.

http://www.allaboutvision.com/parents/infants.htm [Accessed on 12th Nov 2015]

It's really quite funny and amazing, when children stand in front of the mirror for the first time and they start to recognize their reflection and apparently see their body as a whole for the first time (Lacan's Mirror Stage). I have also heard somewhere that children cannot really see what's behind the glas in the moving vehicle to some point, but I am not sure that's true...

Most than ever, in the twenty-first century we gazed upon. We look at and we're looked at; we have subject within our gaze (objectifying), but we also become objectified. We recognize ourselves as subjects; we also pick up selectively from subjectivity of others. Male gaze is linked to social power for centuries and it is under examination and critique today. Women are objectified by men to be looked at as being fair sex. Right to vote and many other activities were exclusively given to men in society for may years. A lot of the time that probably imbalanced power. Well, women and man got equal rights for a while now. Muscly handsome lads are appreciated by women and men public in the advertising world. Moral codes are often broken in trying to balance male and female society. However, two wrongs don't make it right. Inappropriate, sexist and almost pornographic images appear on adverts. People are breaking boundaries and traditional styles. But is it really freedom? Do we like the world we live in? New technologies and easier life surely help us...besides of that technological progress, is the life any less stressful, better with acceptation of nearly everything...? Well, I like traditional... old school style, old morals. I think world is going well too far now, its full of sickness more than it ever was with numerous issues. But I also see a lot of potential for those who want to make it better.
Art and design next to media holds a lot of power over the world. Unfortunately there are examples of bad and controversial advertising (like 'Is your body beach ready' posters or 1980s fashion poster entitled 'Hello boys'), which can be insulting for some people or very inappropriate for teenagers or young children to see (shown in the wrong place or wrong time). Advertisements are often full of fiction, showing perfectly shaped model bodies approved by Photoshop refinements, persuading with adequate phrases how we should live, what to use and how to look. As a result there're more anorectic girls not feeling good enough with their bodies, increased depression for many different reasons (relating to that as it's a big part of the world around us and causing particular behaviours) and growing consumerism. Of course there are plenty of very beautiful adverts, showing happy families... but some of them are quite exploitative, using aspect of being happy or accepted (showing the world we want to belong to) to make us buy their product or service. That's just part of advertising strategies, but I think it's important to be aware of it. I'm very interesting in advertising campaigns, but I will definitely want my work to be respectful to others, considerate and possibly sending out a good message. Possibly for some companies or artists of all sort, controversy is the way to show up their name to the world, but I don't want to be a part of anything not matching my moral values.
I have already taken a life project which made me ask myself this moral questions. There were two separate parts of the brief: one to create brand, logo and fashion tags and the other to make design for a packaging of different clothing line. Knowing that packaging project supposed to contain unreal information ('since 1926') I decided only to be part of the first one. Also knowing that I look at this sort of information myself while buying the product, I don't won't to confuse and encourage potential shoppers with this fake attachment. Besides the first part is really exciting and in progress. We work in a group of four and I found out that working in the group can actually be really pleasurable. I really enjoyed it. Discussion and exchange of ideas builds confidence. I have done a lot of thinking and drawing, but I couldn't actually see a lot of potential in my ideas. I had plenty of them, but none seemed possibly good enough to consider for a client (well... surely before I tried them digitally). I felt great, when the group picked up on my idea and have taken my sketch to further - software development. I am really happy with that, because my concept for the logo could become known in American environment (of course if our client approves he likes it).


Going back to the lecture and male gaze, Matt mentioned Hollywood cinema and problem of female put into functionality in James Bond's movies. Each film has an actress portraying a character of lover and/or a sidekick of Bond. They are so called 'Bond Girls' and they have always shown classical female beauty of their time, symbols of glamour and sophistication, presented in all superlatives. On the image we've seen she is in the bikini and becomes sexual desire; she's quite obviously there to be looked at. That's why possibly every men would like to be Bond; he's got all the best girls.

There's also a poster for Alfred Hitchcock's film 'Rear Window'(1954) which exposes a female background character exercising in the centre; a man holds binoculars towards the spectator. There were also works of Allen Jones (table based on a woman figure) and Jemima Stehli's photograph following the same approach. Stehli is a British feminist photographer, who also examined reaction of men in her auto-portrait series called 'Strip', while she would perform her act with her back to the camera and let the art critic, invited for this occasion to the studio, to take the photograph.
Miley Cyrus had no clothes in her video clip.There are women wearing niqabs on the street covering their whole body, including face. It's personal choice. However...who gives the options? Part of society disagrees with those choices being public. It makes some people uncomfortable. Personally I don't like both of those ideas. Miley's video is easily available on YouTube or TV music channels and they shouldn't be shown during the day while children can watch it, even simply by accident. Access to almost pornographic imagery should have limited access. I also feel very uncomfortable with the other case. I feel unsure and usually quite unsafe passing through for obvious reasons of recent terrorist incidents in the world. I agree with it, unless it doesn't cover the whole face and you're unable to make an eye contact. It's fine and its their tradition in Arabic countries, but I think outside of them there should be some restriction in this case.



Barbara Kruger
Your Gaze Hits The Side of My Face (1981)

I think, the whole battle of man and women gaze shouldn't end with acts of extreme demonstrations, possibly bringing bad influence or demoralisation, especially for children and young people.
Having my own child, I would like to protect him from any bad and unnecessary in very young age visual influence. That's why I notice and consider those things more. In my opinion technology has already taken its place to destruct childhood in some way for many kids, who are extremely aware and able to use it. My son at age of three can easily use many option on my iPad (watching children channels on YouTube or play toddler games). He doesn't need me to assist, all I have to do its supervision of what's on the screen. That's what most kids are capable of doing this days.
I really dislike some of the products for children, dolls being very sexist, wearing heavy makeup and disgusting look of some toys being zombies or monsters. I am really against very real and scary looking Halloween costumes, that parents chose to dress their children up, accented even more with bloody face paint. I think there should be considerate and reasonable amount of ugliness applied to all areas that involve young children. I was happy to see 'Carve a heart in your pumpkin this Halloween' campaign by World Vision (even if it isn't a heart, it can still be a friendly or reasonably scary face). It supposed to be fun, not to give children nightmares and swallow their innocence. I think parents should carefully think how all this staff can influence their little ones (especially TV programmes and games), and selectively choose only appropriate options from big amount offered on the market.
I find this topic quite related to the painting showing execution of Robert Francis Damiens (1757) as a visual spectacle, terrifying play right at the beginning, when the worst part is only imagined. The artwork was intended to be seen by audience, so as the real situation. What I wanted to emphasize is that children add even more imagination to all these, if they are aware of unnecessary things too early.

 

Jeremy Bentham's ''penopticon'', also described by historian and philosopher, Michel Foucault, in his book 'Discipline and Punish' (who criticized it), was the final aspect of the lecture. 'Penopticon' was a circular prison building with only one guard required, located in the middle. It supposed to make prisoners feeling always watched and so they wouldn't repeat their crimes.
In the twenty-first century it is so much easier to watch... there are CCTV cameras all over the place, generally easy access to the media or internet, phone cameras that capture whatever we want at any time. We are looked at intensively, even when we're not aware of it; we're judged and objectified every day.

Intellectual Property and Copywriting

''The golden rule of thumb... is that there isn't one.''


2 November 2015

This morning I went to Roland Mallinson's (Partner, Taylor Wessing LLP) lecture about intellectual property (IP) and copywriting. It was indeed very useful and important to hear about it from a specialist in his field who deals with this sort of cases on regular bases. I thing it's highly necessary knowledge in the creative industry, whenever you work for a company, building own business and perhaps employing people or working freelance. It is also relevant while studying and doing a degree show as there are sadly some people coming to visit those just to pinch students ideas for own good.
Some details seemed to be a bit rushed and confused me, but it became more clear during our seminar discussion.
Besides I will definitely keep Roland's email in my records. I will be surely joining some of the copyright communities online. It is definitely rather good to think how IP can be protected in the twenty-first century world when everyone can easily watch and be watched.

Our understanding of the law, visual and written signs, made to inform copywriting, are incredibly important to protect own and avoiding to infringe someone else's IP. There are legal rights protecting the expression of ideas giving a limited monopoly right for revealed/shared ideas. Forms of intellectual property are: trade marks (identifying brands), patents (for functional inventions), copyright and design rights (registered or not). Designer/creator is the owner of IP unless any contract transfers it to someone else. However as employee designer or in own company, the intellectual property belongs to the employer.

If IP rights are infringed, the legal advice or investigation usually takes place (option for UK IP Office opinion, £200) and the letter before action (Cease and Desist letter) is sent. If the litigation is still not settled, there can be injunction from the court and paying cost of damages and legal costs to the winner (usually a lot of money). There are also further risks and consequences like: embarrassment and loosing reputation/integrity; besides: fines or even imprisonment when refusing court's orders. There is also possible to get immediate injunction without any warning.

What should I be doing about IP?

That was a question in my head right after I left the lecture theatre... Well I learnt a lot about it today. As there is no rule to identify intellectual property, it's important to draw inspiration but not copying. It is the best idea to have a referee on the side who can confirm who's done the work and keeping reliable records and backups (such as: sketchbook, research file, email to yourself, photograph with a newspaper showing the date, publishing low quality copies on social media). When making a parody of something or publishing designs/artwork, extra care should be undertaken; licence with written terms. Sometimes the best and cheapest option is to register more valuable or promising commercially designs for couple of hundred pounds; however being selective to avoid unnecessary cost and making sure that final design is definitive.
I don't really have any designs like this, but it's good to know for the future, in case..  If I made something I am truly proud of, I would like to protect it and be certain nobody else will make a fortune out of it instead of me.

Globalisation and ubiquity of Internet (digital copying) gave us great opportunities to research prior art and design and to download with very high speed. It is easy to infringe and to be caught (and it is a crime to copy and use it for own benefit).

There are tests for infringement of IP right for each part: the same overall impression on a notional ''informed user'' and copying for unregistered right (designs), ''substantial copy'' of the original - not just a certain percent (copyright), confusingly similar, identical or free-ridding off, diluting or tarnishing a mark reputation (trade marks), effectively equivalent or exactly the same (patents).
And again, that's just some criteria, the law with possible different interpretations of court or general public (interviews, surveys).

To follow the topic I will definitely consider joining either ACID (www.acid.uk.com) or Design and Artistic Copyright Society (www.dacs.co.uk). I think it could be a fantastic guarantor to prove originality of my work. Like I have read and heard a lot of the time, nothing is really original anymore, but I think separate perceptions, trying different routes and contexts still identify new and previous work. There won't be two exactly identical artworks unless they're copied.

After today I know that in the future, before I show my portfolio to the company, I should present non-disclosure agreement and get it signed and that it can be downloaded on Google. It's a good aspect to gain respect and self-confidence and make the creative environment ad employers aware that we 're aware of own rights.

 

 

I was already thinking of creating my own logo or digital watermark that I could start using ones I graduate (or at least proper recognizable sign). I am more aware of social media terms (for example Facebook account I have). As an obvious response to this lecture I made notes here to remember all those things and I am sure I will notice them much more. I will definitely start putting copyright symbol with my name and date on my best work and then possibly on each one of them in the future.
I found out today that apart of images/objects created even my notes from today have copyright which expires in a year.
Thinking/an idea in your head isn't an intellectual property yet. I becomes that when it's drawn or written (expression of thought becomes my copyright). I have had that experience when ideas would start sparking in my head just after going to bed and usually I pick up my mobile phone and write it down. I don't do it then I usually forget it in the morning. These things need to be written straight away or I just forget them which is very frustrating. I really like the new iPhone option of drawing notes that can be easily made anywhere.

I got great tips what I could do in the situation when I see my work as someone else's, for instance on the shop display. So firstly I should get evidence by taking a photograph and/or a witness and possibly online journal entry/social media. Sometimes it's enough to contact particular person/company and very simply avoid court because it's the reputation that matters to every creator! Other option can be (depending on scale of that) talking to the manager in the store or sending an email or get advice from Citizens Bureau.
Some examples shown by Roland Mallinson of ripping off IP were quite ridiculous, such as Lloyds bank and their copyright green or battle between Apple and Samsung over the shape of the smart phone production (where apparently Samsung iPad is fat&ugly and Apple one is slim&elegant).
There was also a technical tip during our seminar about production, while creating a logo/brand: visiting a websites like www.uk.register (to check if something like this already exists) and then www.own-it.org as all brands have TM registrations. It's good to lodge artwork/design with third party institutions, such as banks (good backup proof).

I found out that university can use my work unless it's for permanent display and then with student's consent can be used or bought. In return we get feedback from tutors and group critique, we're learning. It's similar with live projects which are an additional part of the course, but I think it's really good and more exciting.


Is the IP and copyright law beneficial for big businesses/creative industries?

I think there is a big negative impact of this law because a lot of the time it serves interests of big companies or corporations. It also limits creative individuals who cannot use certain thing, for instance LLoyds bank took monopoly at using their particular green. Big business often steal ideas from unexperienced students or unaware creative people. IP law prevents following global trends and parodies. It forces industry to imitate, borrow or reinvent to be vibrant and prevents using old ideas in new media, colours or configurations.
In some cases IP only prevents ''outright deception and counterfeits, slavish imitation of limited creativity. It prevents copying, not being inspired - one of positive aspects. Copyright prevent sharing ideas confidentially without being ripped off (but it doesn't prevent verbal exchange that cannot be proved that easily so I guess the first person to use it is a winner, such as someone overheard the idea and made really quick use of it). Talking about academic creations... it could happen that two people had very similar perceptions/ideas without communicating with each other and then whoever shows it first to the group, wins in some way, as the concept seems to be repeated or copied.
But IP definitely enables creators to invest their project commercially, build a business and ''expand internationally or source production'' with less risk. Additional positive aspect of the IP law is that we can license our IP and make terms and conditions.
It seems to me a bit controversial that when I will be employed all my intellectual property delivered belongs to the employer. I think there could be a rip-off situation in this case especially with big influential companies.

Copyright Law Poster
Designed by: Josh Forbesbrown, Andre Herr Ring
 

The photograph above shows one of the posters from the upcoming set of collection for this year lectures. This one designed by my classmates, who used in very clever way a symbol for copyright, which is loosing its quality, possible value over the process of copying. It also shows that things and concepts fade over the time and become boring. We get used to the visuals in our environment to the point when they can even become trashy, kitschy...
It reminds me of last Minories Gallery exhibition I've seen. It has shown artwork, which was commissioned on the commercial market, cheaply in the supermarket around the corner. A lot of them examples (such as Van Gogh's ''Sunflowers'') used to be a remarkable, unique art pieces of their time, bought for million pounds... while in contemporary word they became a bit worthless. Of course it is completely different quality than the originals, but anyone can see it and reprint it. However the experience of looking closely into original painting in the National Gallery is rather amazing and no copy will pass through the feeling of the original.

Coincidentally on the same day I have found a post on Facebook on Qrkoko.pl personal blog by Agata Garbowska, craftwork practitioner, who easily and friendly explains, how to behave in the situation when we found out our copyright was infringed. It's important to know to make sure someone hasn't come out with the same or very similar idea before. We should always compare the publication date first and to check on the websites if nobody made the same thing before us (Google graphics research or https://www.tineye.com). If someone took an advantage of our work, the best option is to try to contact this person/company with a backup evidence and politely ask them to stop or possibly pay for using it. There are also possibilities that people are not aware of what they're doing.

I have also cursorily read the Polish law in this area, but I didn't spot a difference to the British one (more at: http://www.prawoautorskie.pl/roz-1-przedmiot-prawa-autorskiego). It can be different internationally. Copyright and IP infringement can be reported on any social media, blogs or on Google (Copyright Report Form or Digital Millennium Copyright Act - DMCA).








15 November 2015

Today while doing research for my main module, I have found this IP lawyer agency in London called BRIFFA and a very good glossary of terms about intellectual property on their website attached below (http://www.briffa.com/ Accessed on 15 Nov 2015). Just to remember it better and to have everything in one place.

Intellectual Property (IP) rights are the legal rights to creations of the mind. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include patents, copyright, design right, trade mark, trade dress and trade secret.

 

Brand - A brand is a word used to describe all the elements of intellectual property rights that a businesses uses to identify and distinguish its goods and services from those of competitors. It includes trade mark and trade dress but is not limited to those elements and can include  for example design and copyright material that conveys the brand message.

 

Database Right - This is a right similar to copyright which is granted to those who invest in the creation of databases. It works in a similar way to copyright but has a useful additional feature in that a person can infringe your database right by taking a small amount of data on a regular basis which gets round the need to show that the taking has been whole of substantial.

 

Copyright - A movie, a song, computer software, a book, a painting, a graffiti - at the heart of the intellectual property protection for all these things is copyright, which protects many types of creative work. Copyright gives those who invest the skill and effort to create original work the right to prevent others from copying them. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed. Copyright arises automatically on creation and does not need to be registered in the UK or Europe. It does what it says on the tin. It confers a right on the owner to prevent others copying their work.  It does not stifle independent creation of works. A person infringes your copyright if they copy your work wholly or substantially.

 

Database Right - This is a right similar to copyright which is granted to those who invest in the creation of databases. It works in a similar way to copyright but has a useful additional feature in that a person can infringe your database right by taking a small amount of data on a regular basis which gets round the need to show that the taking has been whole of substantial.

 

Design Right - A "design" can be anything from handicraft items and one-off artistic works such as a sculpture to a pattern (e.g. a tartan), a fashion garment or a product such as a chair. A design right acts as a deterrent to others who may infringe your design by copying all or part of it. Also it gives you the right to sue those who do go ahead and copy you without first obtaining permission.

 

Invention - An invention is a way of doing something that improves on what is currently available. Many but by no means all inventions are patentable and can be protected as such. In order to be patentable an invention must not be already known, must demonstrate an inventive step and must be capable of industrial application. Certain inventions are excluded from patent protection such as scientific discoveries, games and methods of doing business. It is possible to patent computer programs in some cases where they have the effect of solving a technical problem.

 

Patent - Windsurfers, corkscrews, lighting systems and medicinal drugs can all benefit from patent protection. A patent is a monopoly right granted by the government to the inventor, who has used his skill to invent something new. In order to encourage the sharing of knowledge the patent system asks inventors to share with the patent office how their invention works. In exchange for a limited period, the inventor can stop others from making, using or selling the invention where his permission has not been obtained. A patent if therefore in effect a deal with the government. After the period of protection has expired anyone is free to use the technology described in a patent.

 

Trade Mark - A trade mark is a recognisable sign, design or expression which distinguishes products and/or services of a trader from similar products or services of other traders. While most businesses register words or logos the trade mark system is not limited to these devices and there are a range of things that a business can secure rights in including jingles, smells and shapes.  A well known registered jingle is one registered by Deutsche Telecom. A Dutch company successfully registered a mark for the smell of fresh cut grass for its tennis balls. Unlike other rights trade marks can last indefinitely and can become better and stronger rights with use over time.

 

Trade Dress - is the overall commercial image (look and feel) of a product or service that indicates or identifies the source of the product or service and distinguishes it from those of others.

 

Trade Secret - is any confidential business information which gives a company a competitive edge may be considered a trade secret. Trade secrets encompass manufacturing or industrial secrets and commercial secrets. The unauthorised use of such information by persons other than the holder is regarded as an unfair practice and a violation of the trade secret. Trade secrets can be protected so long as they are imparted in a scenario where the person receiving the information understands that the information being received is confidential. Most commonly this is achieved by the parties entering into a non-disclosure agreement to confidentiality agreement before they discuss ideas together.