Reproduction of Images

To the left is an image of the Brooklyn Bridge, which I took when I was last in New York; and I photoshoped it to look like a version of the Brooklyn bridge Andy Warhol poster that I have hanging in my room. This image reminded me of what we talked about in seminar this week, we talked about the interpretation of art, and reproduction of images. We learned that any type of image, or media clip can be reproduced, thus leading to a huge change in the role of images in our society.
Before we were able to reproduce images, etc. the piece of art was considered original, and distinctive. We got talking about the idea of “authenticity” and whether or not we thought it was right to reproduce images, and reconstruct then into different versions, like how The Scream,
has been mass produced, and used for many different, even I have a huge blown up version of it in my room. Our discussion lead us to authorship and artistic ownership, and whether or not we were for the reproduction of famous images, or against. Personally I think it is ok to work off of someone’s original piece of art, as long as you pay tribute to the true artist that is behind it.
For example we talked about how the Andy Warhol image of the flowers, was actually taking by a lady for a gardening magazine, and he ended up using it, and didn’t pay any tribute to her. I think that its fine as long as there is a tie to the original artistThis is a photo of two famous paintings morphed together, I thought it was neat, and really went along with our seminar discussion of image reproductions, and how it ties back to artistic ownership. ie. is this painting by Adam Christopher Strange considered an original since he painted it or just a copy of two different paintings.