kylewp

About Me:
Name: Kyle William Patzwahl Major: Political Science/Business Administration Computer Experience: Some experience with Adobe Suite, mostly with Auto CAD, Revit Art Experience: I have an A.A. degree in Fine arts concentrating on sculpture and ceramics, so I'm a little knew to the technological side of art. Art Interests: Minimalism, both as an art style and as a lifestyle, and photography.


 * Response Reading 1:**

The comic book brought a lot of thoughts to my mind about the world of copyright. It seems that copyright and plagiarism, while different, tend to overlap in many ways–something that was easier for me to understand coming from an academic background. Firstly, I didn’t get very far into the piece before taking a mental note of the medium itself, yes that it was written in a comic book style. I at first thought that this was in an effort to bring some sort of levity to the subject, but quickly realized that it was a literal way for the author to show how complex the subject matter was, which I think was a success because it was not only complex, but overwhelming, much like copyright law.

To this notion of complexity, I believe that it is necessary to protect artists and content producers from being copied by someone or some company that can take their work and mass market it, or claim it as their own without acknowledging the true owner. This is similar to pharmaceutical companies or other medicinal corporations are given the exclusive right to manufacture and sell a new medication, not only because they were the first to develop it, but because there is a lot of time, cost, and energy that went into the product. This is how I looked at the reading, except in terms of art (film, photography, digital media, etc.).

Unfortunately, as the reading talks about with the birthday song, the current use of this law is not being used as it hopefully was intended to be. What I mean is that the rights owner isn’t necessarily the artist, or content creator. It can be a producer, or someone who funded the artistic endeavor who ends up in control of say, the birthday song. It is then up to the rights holder to determine when to charge extremely high prices to use their content, to which they simply own and maybe didn’t create. There seems to be some outdated, manipulativeness going on with current copyright laws, definitely having a effect on artists everywhere.

I think the conversation needs to move from such tight restrictions to how can artists borrow ideas and content without fear of being sued for copyright infringement in this world of ever increasing connectedness. I wonder to the extent that artists actually think about the potential violations though, it probably is much less than I am believing having just spiked my fears from this article.

In my own experience, I have definitely seen instances where there are blurred objects in a television show, or in a short clip, etc. When macs are used especially there is a piece of grey tape over the distinctive apple, or a sticker, but anyone who’s seen one before can still distinctively tell what it is. So, while I think there are easy ways around it, I am genuinely interested in the lack of updates to these outdated and not amazingly protective laws.


 * Exercise 1: Presence Absence:**









historical image rock fabrication water eye tenticles


 * Project 1 Surrealist Composite:**

Here, a play on the dimensions (2D and 3D) enables the observer to really come to question, are things "exactly as we see them?"

After Crit: note ear and lips added into background and larger 'SEE" and 'IT' was brought off the bottom of page:

Animated GIF:

Final Project: These are the four original images (trigger images). The overlays shown below reflect their Aurasma AR features. Starting from left to right, the actions were turning around, falling face first, zoom out, and raising the middle finger.