|
Forums >
General Industry >
Just who is the "Artist", anyway?
Here is the situation: A model with ideas and imagery in mind works with a photographer on those ideas. The themes came from the model, but it was the photographer with the know-how who made it happen. Variations on theme are a result of both minds collaborating...but who is counted as the artist of the shots? Photographer, or model? (I know many will say "both"...but let's say your choices are one or the other.) Humor me, this is where "fact" leaves the building, and "opinion" takes over. Aug 10 06 09:41 am Link both. Aug 10 06 09:42 am Link Whichever has the highest reputation. See also: Andy Warhol. Aug 10 06 09:46 am Link TheArchon wrote: If the model has an idea they are then the" art director" that's why you have art directors , Aug 10 06 09:57 am Link both. Aug 10 06 09:58 am Link Better question: Just who is the "Archon", anyway? Aug 10 06 10:01 am Link There is a distinction between an "artist" and a "craftsman". A "craftsman" can execture the concept with high quality, but it is the "artist" that defines the concept in the first place. Thus, in your scenario, I'd say the model is the "artist". Another way to look at it: who paid whom? The person who hired the other is / should be the person who retains the copyright. Aug 10 06 10:01 am Link It's ALWAYS both, even if the concept was just the photographer's. Most photographers aren't the ones doing the posing. Therefore it is almost always a collaboration. Of course, my statement makes the huge assumption that the model can pose well. If the photographer has to explain every little step, then the above goes out the window. Aug 10 06 10:02 am Link Without a contract that states otherwise, copyright goes to the photographer. Aug 10 06 10:03 am Link James Graham wrote: ar·chon (är'kÅn', -kÉn) pronunciation Aug 10 06 10:04 am Link If the model has ideas they want to produce images for they hire a photography get an agreement in writing as to ownership of the copyrights and produce the images.. If the photog has ideas they want to produce they hire the model, and blah blah blah.. If both do.. I would suggest... Talking.... Taking notes... Writing a new contract.. Aug 10 06 10:15 am Link TheArchon wrote: Not that there is automatically any particular value to tradition -- but -- the Mona Lisa is signed by da Vinci, not La Giocanda. There is a long tradition of work being signed by the artist, even when there was a team effort. Aug 10 06 10:40 am Link It's a collaboration. Neither might exist without the other... Just my .02cents Aug 10 06 10:56 am Link James Graham wrote: lol. Aug 10 06 11:07 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Wrong. Unless the photographer is on the client's payroll as a employee, the copyright always belongs to the photog. It has nothing to do with pay. Aug 10 06 11:12 am Link Good responses, all! To answer one question, in particular: Archon. "What" is Archon would have been the apt question. Other than it being my stage-name for the band that I front: In late antiquity some variants of Gnosticism used the term Archon to refer to several servants of the Demiurge, the "creator god" that stood between the human race and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis. In this context they have the role of the angels and demons of the Old Testament. The Egyptian Gnostic Basilideans accepted the existence of an archon called Abraxas who was the prince of 365 spiritual beings (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, I.24). The Orphics accepted the existence of seven archons: Iadabaoth or Ialdabaoth (who created the six others), Iao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Elaios, Astaphanos and Horaios (Origen, Contra Celsum, VI.31). The commonly-called Pistis Sophia (or The Books of the Savior) gives another set: Paraplex, Hekate, Ariouth (females), Typhon, and Iachtanabas (males). Ialdabaoth had a head of a lion, just like Mithraic Kronos (Chronos) and Vedic Narasimha, a form of Vishnu. Their wrathful nature was mistaken as evil. The snake wrapped around them is Ananta (Sesha) Naga (mythology). In the early literary period of ancient Greece the chief magistrates of various Greek city states were called Archons. The term was also used throughout Greek history in a more general sense, ranging from "club leader" to "master of the tables" at syssitia to "Roman governor". ArchÅns ruled by imperium, whereas Basileus ("sovereign") are said to have auctoritas. In Athens a system of three concurrent Archons evolved, the three office holders being known as the Archon Eponymous, the Polemarch, and the Archon Basileus. Originally these offices were filled from the aristocracy by elections every ten years. During this period Archon Eponymous was the chief magistrate, the Polemarch was the head of the armed forces, and the Archon Basileus was responsible for the civic religious arrangements. After 683 BC the offices were held for only a single year, and the year was named after the Archon Eponymous. (Many ancient calendar systems did not number their years consecutively as we do.) After 487 BC the archonships were assigned by lot to any citizen and the Polemarch's military duties were taken over by a new class of generals known as strategoi. The Polemarch thereafter had only minor religious duties. The Archon Eponymous remained the titular head of state even under the democracy, though of much reduced political importance. The Archons were assisted by "junior Archons", called Thesmothetes. After 457 BC ex-archons were automatically enrolled as life members of the Areopagus, though that assembly was no longer extremely important politically at that time. Aug 10 06 11:45 am Link KM von Seidl wrote: lol Aug 10 06 11:51 am Link WG Rowland wrote: Very good, might someone post a contract on this basis? Aug 10 06 12:02 pm Link An idea does not make one an artist, no matter how well thought out and planed and detailed it is. It is the one who brings it into the world that is the artist. Aug 10 06 12:11 pm Link vanscottie wrote: This is the best argument, so far. Well spoken! Aug 10 06 12:48 pm Link |
