Here Be Dragons

Third Art Installment. News at Now.

Ah yes, Art. Yesterday Art indeed for Arts sake. Now this here story in the Herald got me annoyed. Feel my indignation. FEEL IT. Also it even got thesis smack down, of a sort, and so to the story.

"Goldie copies upset Maori descendants" reads the headline of the article, and I assume it is likely to be a story about forgeries, or some nastyness involving someone making illegal copies of the works, or stealing them from museums, or reproducing crappy versions of them, that look sucky, or whatever.

But no.

Descendants of Maori who posed for Goldie (Nice, a dictionary of NZ biographies) are upset by a business which reproduces the paintings.

North Shore-based Vintage Art is selling copies of paintings by the artist known for his meticulously detailed portraits of Maori.

In fact, the copies are really really good (apparently) missing only ageing of the originals. So what exactly is their problem?

Well the great-great-grandson (the son of the son of the son of the son of the paintings subject) Isn't happy.

Wiremu Puke, a descendant of "Wiremu Patara Te Tuhi, who was a chief from Ngati Wairere (Tainui), said he was more sad than angry about the couple not talking to descendants."

"It does not hurt to talk or to be best informed about the history of those people," Mr Puke said.

"The feelings we have for those pictures is no different to having a photo of a newborn baby or someone in the family that has died."

Meanwhile, an equaly estranged descendant, "Pat Ruka, a great-great-grandson of Ena Te Papatahi, who was a chieftainess from Ngati Whatua and Ngati Paoa, agreed."

"I'm offended there was no talk and it's even more sad that we as descendants can't do anything about it because they are within their legal rights."

That's right. It is totally legal. Why? Because (in NZ) artistic copyright lasts for 50 after the death of the artist. Goldie died in 1947 and so since 1997 those works have been out of copyright. In the magical place Nic gets to talk about (suck) the "public domain."

Mr Puke apparently thinks that the law should be revisited.

"I'm not saying I'm against what they have done, but that we need to be assured that those paintings will be valued and respected."

And someone that the Herald found even agrees with him.

Art historian Roger Blackley, author of the book Goldie, agreed with the descendants, saying there was an "ethical and cultural obligation to consult". [whilst] The Auckland Art Gallery, which holds the largest collection of original Goldie paintings, also agreed.

In the words of Liam Lynch, whatever!

"It does not hurt to talk or to be best informed about the history of those people." Correct, it probably does not hurt. However it is not necessary, for this to occur. These are painting of people that have been dead for sometime. Wiremu Patara Te Tuhi for example died in 1910. Yes it might be interesting for the vendors to know the history of the person, but no perhaps not. It has little to do with what they are selling, and I'm sure the above link would provide them with much information is pertinent. So no, move along.

"The feelings we have for those pictures is no different to having a photo of a newborn baby or someone in the family that has died." That's nice. But baleeted. While I appreciate that people may have such feelings. Get over it, these are old old old, almost 100 years old. MOVE ALONG!

"we need to be assured that those paintings will be valued and respected" Oh yeah? Why? Because you say? I think not. You can attempt to make sure that this thing I have bought is valued and respected, but if I want to buy it and set fire to it you cannot stop me. I probably won't do this as the item cost $100-$500, so um, I do value it. But if I choose to smash it with a hammer then deal.

As for the Auckland Museum's belief that their is a "ethical and cultural obligation to consult..." No. No. No. There is not. Too many "cultural sensitivity" sessions for whoever said that.

God damnit people! Sort it out.

I'm not even going to really comment on the why and associated theory of intellectual property, (because it is long and boring that's why), but I will say breifly that:

1) Things getting to the public domain (eventually I don't need to propose all public domain all the time, just eventually (unlike in the US where so far it is never, but see I said I wouldn't rant on that, so I won't (I won't))) is good. If you want to know why go see the boys and girls at creativecommons.org they'll show you some stuff (see especially this flash thingo, featuring the White Stripes)

2) Once it is in the public domain there is NO need for consultation, no need for cultural or ethical sensitivity or infact anything, it is freeware, it is public domain you can do what ever the hell you want with it. That is what it means. Hello? Paying attention are we.

3) "revisiting the law" is suxor. If you do you will get the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and then we will need people like Eldred to take it to the man.

So how about Noooooooooooo! More power to people reproducing these paintings, they are cool. I feel like running out grabbing one of these and going all Warhol on them. Because I can. That's the point.

So there.

PS. Anyone that starts to talk about how Warhol could use copyrighted images because he was making "art" and or it was "satirical" or all the other more technical copyright foobles can rant at their leisure... But it suited me to end with him, rather than run out and "photocopy hundrends of them and sell them for 50c." It just doesn't have the same ring.

Posted by luther at September 22, 2003 12:39 AM | TrackBack