• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Artist spotlighted by NYT and Vice is plagairizing anime and manga

K

Kettch

Member
If all the art she makes is copying other people and mashing them together, then calling her out on copying specific pieces isn't really much of a gotcha, since that would be the point of what she does.

I guess the issue here is whether she's attempting to pass off the drawings as her own or not. If she is, that's obviously plagiarism. If she isn't, then that would just be what the works are.

My personal feelings are that mashing other people's art together is dumb, and anyone paying 9500 dollars for it is insane. I feel that way about other types of art too though.
 
D

Dyle

Member
There's a fine line between transformation, appropriation, and plagiarism. For the works in the OP I can't buy the appropriation line particularly since she has herself pointed out the area in detail without any reference to the creator she's drawing from or showing it's context in the greater work. In other words, I would argue that the exploding heads bit is appropriated acceptably in the context of the piece as a whole, albeit without proper acknowledgement, but is plagiarized in her Instagram posts when it is made to appear as a unique work identical to the source artist.

In this day and age there are many interesting approaches to appropriation of artistic images but this artist doesn't seem to have quite developed her own mature style that makes the appropriation genuinely transformative and interesting. Hopefully she can continue her ideas, develop her citations more carefully, and mature as an artist. I think I like the direction her work is heading in but it needs refinement before it can be successful
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Staccat0 said:
Eh....
This extra context actually changes my opinion.

I like lots of songs with sampling so I can’t be too mad. This is a valid artistic expression I think.

coulda literally cut them from printed works and nobody would give two shits how she kit-bashed them together.
Click to expand...

You realize sampling can get you fucked right?

Look up what happened to The Verve and Bittersweet Symphony
 
M

MomoMura

Member
Appropriation was used by Postmodern artists to critique the current state of the Art world and modern Art. These Postmodern artists were also very straight-forward and honest with who they were appropriating, and did so with the fullest intentions. It was the most meta period of art hisotry.

This person, however, does not have the intellectual capacity, nor is her intent in any way, shape, or form comparable to that of the Postmodern artists in the 1950's and '60s.
 
S

StrangeRoboMemory

Member
Dyle said:
There's a fine line between transformation, appropriation, and plagiarism. For the works in the OP I can't buy the appropriation line particularly since she has herself pointed out the area in detail without any reference to the creator she's drawing from or showing it's context in the greater work. In other words, I would argue that the exploding heads bit is appropriated acceptably in the context of the piece as a whole, albeit without proper acknowledgement, but is plagiarized in her Instagram posts when it is made to appear as a unique work identical to the source artist.
Click to expand...

Eh, have to disagree here. There's a wide gulf of cultural purchase between the Maruo exploding head girl - only known in the West to otaku freaks and Tumblr art dorks - and huge pop symbols like Bart and Hello Kitty. It would be extremely reasonable for someone to assume: "Hey, this piece is making a statement about our relationship to Bart Simpson and Hello Kitty, and also the artist is throwing in her own weird touches to create this sort of sainty icon image around Bart."
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
Dyle said:
There's a fine line between transformation, appropriation, and plagiarism. For the works in the OP I can't buy the appropriation line particularly since she has herself pointed out the area in detail without any reference to the creator she's drawing from or showing it's context in the greater work. In other words, I would argue that the exploding heads bit is appropriated acceptably in the context of the piece as a whole, albeit without proper acknowledgement, but is plagiarized in her Instagram posts when it is made to appear as a unique work identical to the source artist.

In this day and age there are many interesting approaches to appropriation of artistic images but this artist doesn't seem to have quite developed her own mature style that makes the appropriation genuinely transformative and interesting. Hopefully she can continue her ideas, develop her citations more carefully, and mature as an artist. I think I like the direction her work is heading in but it needs refinement before it can be successful
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s fair to hail the OP image as a good representation of art appropriation. Appropriation implies a level of transformation of the original art itself, which Hayes didn’t do. She did the equivalent of putting on a B&W filter on the image and pasting it on an Illustrator document.
 
S

Staccat0

Fail out bailed
excelsiorlef said:
You realize sampling can get you fucked right?

Look up what happened to The Verve and Bittersweet Symphony
Click to expand...
Yeah song is pretty good though. My taste is not dictated by IP law.

My POV on this artist changed as the thread revealed more info to me though. I’m not defending her work. She is not really doing anything artistically interesting as far as I can tell. Just thieving.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Staccat0 said:
Yeah song is pretty good though. My taste is not dictated by IP law.

My POV on this artist changed as the thread revealed more info to me though. I’m not defending her work. She is not really doing anything artistically interesting as far as I can tell. Just thieving.
Click to expand...

Oh The Verve got screwed on that but that's kind my point... that was an example of a transformative work that was still considered legal plagiarism...
 
R

Ratrat

Member
Is it traced or just an accurate reproduction? Either way, if she credits her sources its not much different than people selling fanart.

Edit: Her comment... Thats a pretty shitty attitude. Maybe shes never had an original thought and doesnt know what it would feel like as a struggling artist to have someone take credit for your work.
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
Ratrat said:
Is it traced or just an accurate reproduction? Either way, if she credits her sources its not much different than people selling fanart.
Click to expand...
Fanart is typically rendered in that artists’ individual style though. This privileged artist does not have a style of her own whatsoever.
 
U

Username1198

Member
Ban Puncher said:
Okay I made my own 100% original art now.


pqfdaE9.png



Taking all bids.
Click to expand...

Ozigizo said:
Here, I made this:

pqfdaE9.png
Click to expand...

Ban Puncher said:
This is the best art I have ever seen.

You have real talent.
Click to expand...

Lmao that’s good
 
P

Poor GRIMES

Banned
Ratrat said:
A lot isnt. Especially Disney or Pokemon stuff emulates the original look a lot. But the point is that its not your IP to sell merchandise of.
Click to expand...
While true, I think those actually purchasing fanart would know where that original style of art came from. I don’t know very many fanartists that claim sole ownership of the characters in their fanart.
 
Moff

Moff

Member
the OT is ill natured and misleading on purpose

does she deny that her work is mostly taken from other artists? because is the isn't then I don't see how anyone could hold anything against her.
 
P

PdotMichael

Banned
Moff said:
so she admits she steals everything?
the problem are the people praising her and paying 10k for her shit, not her
Click to expand...

No, she is the problem. Just because I admit that I steal things doesn't make it okay in a magical way. There is also no artistic integrity in her works which would provide her works somehow with a deeper context and motivation.
 
Moff

Moff

Member
PdotMichael said:
No, she is the problem. Just because I admit that I steal things doesn't make it okay in a magical way. There is also no artistic integrity in her works which would provide her works somehow with a deeper context and motivation.
Click to expand...

She's allowed to trace art she likes.
If she tries to sell it, the people buying it are the problem, especially for huge amounts of money.
The people calling her an artist are the problem, prasing her even.
If it wasn't for those people, she would still just do this for fun and for herself, and that would be fine.
 
P

ponpo

( ≖‿≖)
Moff said:
She's allowed to trace art she likes.
If she tries to sell it, the people buying it are the problem, especially for huge amounts of money.
The people calling her an artist are the problem, prasing her even.
If it wasn't for those people, she would still just do this for fun and for herself, and that would be fine.
Click to expand...

No, even if people are willing to buy something, stealing it and selling it are not fine.
 
T

The Fatal Englishman

Member
Moff said:
She's allowed to trace art she likes.
If she tries to sell it, the people buying it are the problem, especially for huge amounts of money.
The people calling her an artist are the problem, prasing her even.
If it wasn't for those people, she would still just do this for fun and for herself, and that would be fine.
Click to expand...

The fine art world being one big tax-dodging scheme doesn't absolve her from immoral behaviour. She is knowingly profiting (significantly, I might add) from the work of others.

I don't buy the pop art argument either. Say what you will about the artistic merit of Warhol's work, his work still re-contextualised the subject material in an alternative format. This is quite simply copying verbatim and re-selling the work for profit. It wouldn't fly at an art school, it probably doesn't fly by US copyright standards and it really shouldn't fly in the commercial art world, but it does because of a variety of cynical reasons.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Moff said:
the OT is ill natured and misleading on purpose

does she deny that her work is mostly taken from other artists? because is the isn't then I don't see how anyone could hold anything against her.
Click to expand...

Yes?

Look at the example that was posted here of her taking credit for a Band using "her art" as an album over when the band had licensed the original work from the original artist (aka probably paid the original artist)
 
C

chrisPjelly

Member
Yeesh. I have no problems with artists citing other peoples work and even recreating them with full disclosure that it ISN'T their work, but this is just stupid.
 
Laughing Banana

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Vegetable Lasagna said:
Because of the fake rage over this artist doing something that is common practice. You might not like the practice, but why are you exactly so annoyed about it with this artist? Either because it's a woman or people here just feel they have to react to everything they read if they know anything about the subject or not. Either one will make you look stupid.



Okay, I'm done here. Have a good day.
Click to expand...

This is so incredibly moronic and you should be ashamed of your idiocy.
 
E

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
excelsiorlef said:
She's going to claim the plagiarism is her art.


https://youtu.be/MBCO2g2QN18

ZZZZZZ
Click to expand...

She's so...shitty.
Moff said:
so she admits she steals everything?
the problem are the people praising her and paying 10k for her shit, not her
Click to expand...

How are the people who don't know she is stealing the problem and not the thief? Until this became a story, people didn't know she was just straight up stealing shit.

Seems like ass backwards logic.
 
O

Ozigizo

Member
excelsiorlef said:
Yes?

Look at the example that was posted here of her taking credit for a Band using "her art" as an album over when the band had licensed the original work from the original artist (aka probably paid the original artist)
Click to expand...

It appears, of all the shit she's ripped off, that this is what caused her to make everything private. At least, that's what I'm getting from Twitter.
 
M

Maximo

Member
Moff said:
She's allowed to trace art she likes.
If she tries to sell it, the people buying it are the problem, especially for huge amounts of money.
The people calling her an artist are the problem, prasing her even.
If it wasn't for those people, she would still just do this for fun and for herself, and that would be fine.
Click to expand...

That sounds completely iron clad, ladies and gentlemen of the court it was not my defendants fault she stole art, it was THE FAULT of the people who bought it, I rest my case.
 
F

firehawk12

Subete no aware
excelsiorlef said:
Yes?

Look at the example that was posted here of her taking credit for a Band using "her art" as an album over when the band had licensed the original work from the original artist (aka probably paid the original artist)
Click to expand...

I think no one cares if you rip other people off, even if you don't credit them (which you should, but whatever). It gets stupid when you start saying you're the original creator though.
 
M

MistakenMobius

Member
Madness said:
Those writeups by Vice are cringeworthy but I am not surprised. In their rush to praise another pretty blonde, they overlook her art thievery. Her twitter profile is now private as she will try and hope this blows over. I wonder if NY Times or Vice ever gave Shintaro Kago this kind of exposure.
Click to expand...
Vice did 10 years ago a Kago Cover I think.
 
U

UrbanRats

Member
Garuroh said:
Have you seen the tweets of japanese artist begging people to not steal,repost or copy their drawings? Some of them even stop posting their art, it's a big deal for them and is worse for the ones who can't speak english since they can't communicate that. I don't knoe why people feel the need to defended this woman over those artists.
Click to expand...
Second hand embarrassment? I'm not sure.
But i was going on more of a tangent in that post.

I definitely think what she did wasn't right, to be clear.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
firehawk12 said:
I think no one cares if you rip other people off, even if you don't credit them (which you should, but whatever). It gets stupid when you start saying you're the original creator though.
Click to expand...

People care even if you do credit and don't even actually rip off again see The Verve and Bittersweet Symphony.
 
Z

ZombiePlatypus

Member
What is usually the accepted protocol when it comes to appropriation/"sampling" in art? I feel like some of the stuff posted here showing stuff by this artist are definitely problematic. But I also think art would never move forward if appropriation and transforming is looked down upon. Of course this is no excuse for plagiarism whatsoever, but this feels like something that'd be extremely difficult to break down in explicit terms given how subjective art can be.
 
M

MilkBeard

Member
hosannainexcelsis said:
This fuller context changes the connotation considerably. I mean, I think that looks awful, but it's clearly a pop-culture mash-up that's in line with a lot of other modern art I've seen rather than simple forgery/plagiarism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't like her art, but seeing the full context changes the meaning a lot. It's important to know the context.

It seems she is doing this purposely, as a statement of sorts. The fact that she allows people to mistake some of her artwork as completely original is scummy, though. I'm also surprised the 'plagiarism' laws are more lax with art than with other forms. If you even have an inkling of a melody in your song that is the same as a famous song, the rights owner sues, and often successfully.

EDIT:

excelsiorlef said:
She's going to claim the plagiarism is her art.


https://youtu.be/MBCO2g2QN18

ZZZZZZ
Click to expand...

Ehhh, yeah she's scummy.
 
Tapioca

Tapioca

Banned
Art thieves are really weird. They have such low self esteem and think that they cannot produce something others will like so they just steal art and claim it as their own.
 
K

Kyzer

Banned
meltingparappa said:
Did anyone even bother to read the NY Times article?

Her craft and statement are unbelievably shitty that you'd expect someone to grow out of after their first year at Pratt, but there's a huge context for the use of readymade imagery in gallery work.




Tweets without context are fun to be outraged over, but it's less about being a thief and more about being shitty.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious with this post? This is not Andy Warhol lol
 
J

Jackpot

Banned
Moff said:
She's allowed to trace art she likes.
If she tries to sell it, the people buying it are the problem, especially for huge amounts of money.
The people calling her an artist are the problem, prasing her even.
If it wasn't for those people, she would still just do this for fun and for herself, and that would be fine.
Click to expand...

So she bears no responsibility for copying the art?

If I plagiarise a paper and the teacher doesn't catch it, it doesn't mean the teacher is the problem.
 
S

Soran

Member
Going by the posts in this thread is funny to se how ingrained the concept of "defend white women at any cost" is in people brains.
 
M

mileS

Member
That YouTube video...

Top 5 upcoming artists in NYC...... If she sold even one of these for $9000... can you imagine how much money she's made from this vile bullshit already? Not only that but she is getting positive articles written on her.

This thread is like trying to convince people that the earth isn't flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Comic Book Day! - 12/08/10. Or, what happens when Spike has inadequate preptime.
38
3K
The Take Out Bandit replied
  • Locked
Official SXSW blowout thread.
10
3K
StrikerObi replied
Official NeoGAF E3 2006 Thread (initial post updated regularly)
2 3 4 5 6
262
62K
Shiroi-San replied
Top Bottom