Hence, when you copy the image by way of Saville, you are appropriating the association that he has established. When the intended audience sees this, they think, "Joy Division", not "pulsar". The interesting point here is not copyright, but the way in which an image can come to represent a concept such that it gains new meaning. It was common knowledge (at least, to those familiar with Joy Division and Saville's work) that the image itself was appropriated from an original that was in the public domain. Interesting, but the article misses the point in all kinds of ways. ![]() ![]() And because of that I think the author missed out on raising a bigger and more interesting discussion: (I'll quote one of the comments on his site as that phrases is things rather well) That was a long blog which essentially would have been pretty common knowledge for most Joy Division fans and/or people interested in astrophysics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |