Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Find Lesson Plans on! GettyGames

Re: scholastic and copies, consequences....


From: The Austin's (whest177_at_TeacherArtExchange)
Date: Wed Oct 10 2001 - 19:33:12 PDT

Good question! The original ad was just a kids face, full of freckles and a
huge mass of curly hair. I don't remember what was being advertised, but I
remember that face well. The painting was a copy - well done, but still an
exact copy. The rules said "no copies", and they should have stuck with it,
since the face wasn't even altered. As for Warhol, I respect his giant soup
cans because he knew how to market himself. I tell the kids he's kind of
like Madonna - new ideas, lots of marketing skills, low morals.

> > rules weren't followed, and were in fact rewarded? Several years ago (9
> > years I believe) there was a well-known magazine add of a little boy.
> > grand prize winner of the show had taken this little boys face, blown it
> up
> > really large and painted flies on it. . .
> It sounds to me like the image was used, but not exactly "copied." Kind
> reminds me of "sampling" issues in music. Did the ad just feature the
> like the student did? Is this called appropriation? Was there a reason
> statement being made? What was the ad about? How do you feel about
> Warhol's soup cans? This is a highly debatable topic. <BIG grin>
> Leah