Molotov & Ecstasy response

I thought the Molotov reading was very interesting. I absolutely loved that it was written by both people involved in the story, rather than written by just one person who is attempting to tell both sides. At first, I was angry that Susan Meiselas was making such a fuss about Joy's use of her photograph. She clearly changed enough things in the picture to adapt it to her own artistic needs, and even agreed to credit Susan for the influence. Also, shouldn't it be an honor to want other artists to appreciate your work so much that they would attempt to recreate it? I thought Susan was crazy. But then once her side of the story came into view, I started understanding her point of view as well. She all of a sudden didn't seem so unreasonable, seeing as she has allowed her photograph to be reproduced under many different conditions. It makes sense that she doesn't want to tarnish the glory of her subject by making the context unknown. However, in the end, I still agree with Joy. Personally, I actually like that the context was taken away for the painting. That makes the emotions and power behind the picture universal, and everyone can relate to it and interpret it as they wish. Many people could be inspired by the intensity in a variety of ways that would never be possible if the context remained in the painting. I also think Joy's alterations were okay because of the fact that the photo still exists. If people want to see a documented moment in history, they can look at the photograph, but if people want to see an interpreted piece of artwork that has been stripped of everything but the raw emotion, then they can have that too. The best thing about art is that it can be interpreted in a thousand different ways, and I think everyone should be allowed to express themselves as they wish, as long as they are respectful of original artists that they borrow from.

I thought the Ecstasy reading was also interesting, because it came at the subject from a different angle and made me think about it in a different way. After reading this article, I feel like unless you are kept in a basement your whole life, you can't NOT be influenced by other works of writing, art, or visual media. As film students we are always told to watch as many movies as we can to learn from others' techniques, styles, and mistakes. So naturally, some of those techniques may appear in work of our own. is that wrong? If everyone had to come up with something brand new every time they painted, filmed, or wrote, we would have run out of material long ago. I thought the example of Bob Dylan was good because he used lines from literature in his songs all the time, but should he really be punished for being educated and well read? I think giving credit where credit is due is very important, but I don't think people should get so selfish and isolated about their work. Art should involve everyone in a community, whether it is a town, city, state, nation, or the world.