A twisted use of Mickey's likeness for "art"

[Blumonkeyboy]

He has the right to artistic expression and most artists look for an emotional reaction to their work.

You have the right to respond in whatever way you feel is appropriate.

If you react with disgust, anger and repulsion, the artist has succeeded in getting an emotional response.

This is how I react to Bob Dylan.

Thats the best thing ive read all day!

 

[kaligal]

A lot of people hold different interpretations of "art." Some will argue that anything is art and would even ardently support that this little post of mine is art if I deem it so.

I go with the Justic Potter "I know it when I see it" type of view and this did not qualify as art.

A punch in the face will elicit emotions and reactions, too. A punch in the face isn't art...in my book, anyway.

It is an obvious request for attention by whoever put it together and publicized it.

 

[dalt01]

A lot of people hold different interpretations of "art." A punch in the face isn't art...in my book, anyway.

well maybe, if, for example, Moe punches Curly or Larry in the context of the performance that is argueably art.

 

[kaligal]

well maybe, if, for example, Moe punches Curly or Larry in the context of the performance that is argueably art.

Not to me, lol. I don't even consider it entertaining. It's in the category labeled "Dumb things other people watch" with "Dumb and Dumber" and that movie where those two guys go to White Castle.

I will concede that others put it in the "Entertaining" category, though. Just what it is about those 3, I'll never understand........... ......but I know that the males in my life have, at times, enjoyed watching Larry punch Curly (or whoever punches who and says "Woo woo woo.")

 

[dalt01]

Not to me, lol. I don't even consider it entertaining. It's in the category labeled "Dumb things other people watch" with "Dumb and Dumber" and that movie where those two guys go to White Castle.

I will concede that others put it in the "Entertaining" category, though. Just what it is about those 3, I'll never understand........... ......but I know that the males in my life have, at times, enjoyed watching Larry punch Curly (or whoever punches who and says "Woo woo woo.")

i really like White Castle burgers. yum.

 

[DisneyKevin]

A lot of people hold different interpretations of "art." Some will argue that anything is art and would even ardently support that this little post of mine is art if I deem it so.

I go with the Justic Potter "I know it when I see it" type of view and this did not qualify as art.

A punch in the face will elicit emotions and reactions, too. A punch in the face isn't art...in my book, anyway.

It is an obvious request for attention by whoever put it together and publicized it.

Michaelangelo's statue of David which is housed in the Academia in Florence, was once described the same way. ...blasphemous, despicable, a plea for attention, hideous etc.

It's now considered to be one of the masterworks of the Renaissance.

As you seem to have a very strong reaction to the work (comparing it to a punch in the face)....maybe you just dont understand this art piece and will come to appreciate it eventually.

 

[Joshua_me]

"At the end of the day, the swastika, just like the Confederate flag, is a symbol. And I leave symbols to the 'symbol-minded' ". -George Carlin

 

[monkeyknuckler]

I'd like to see Disney "express" themselves with a lawsuit.

 

[challer]

In my opinion, this was a discussion on the nature of art.

The fact that you stated that you didn't know if it was art or not led me to believe that you were interested in discussion.

I now see that you aren't.

Actually, I'm still quite interested and continue to be interested in people's opinions. I am quite enjoying the discussion and will continue to, as people are weighing in their thoughts.

But, again, you are quite entitled to your opinion about me - just as you are entitled to your opinion about Bob Dylan.

And I guess the Mickey's body thing didn't hit me as much as my noticing that he used the park's "Meet & Greet" Mickey as opposed to the animated Mickey.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Actually, I'm still quite interested and continue to be interested in people's opinions. I am quite enjoying the discussion and will continue to, as people are weighing in their thoughts.

But, again, you are quite entitled to your opinion about me - just as you are entitled to your opinion about Bob Dylan.

And I guess the Mickey's body thing didn't hit me as much as my noticing that he used the park's "Meet & Greet" Mickey as opposed to the animated Mickey.

And your entitled to your opinion of me.

 

[chrisw127]

The guy is totally off. If he wanted to express his negative feelings toward the US he should have had a clothed Mickey sitting on a recliner cleaning a shotgun while eating a Lean Pocket. And since we actually fought the Nazis in WWII, the swastika really doesn't work for us. A better symbol of all that is wrong with America would be a big velvet Elvis painting (the one where he has a tear in his eye and is playing poker with a bunch of dogs). You can tell this guy has never been to the States.

Seriously, I think I just described my Uncle Junior's living room.

 

[dalt01]

I'd like to see Disney "express" themselves with a lawsuit.

based on what? i would think the likeness would have passed into "public domain". i do not know this for a fact. perhaps someone out there is versed on trademark and copyright law and could answer this. at any rate it would just get millions more people to look at it and i doubt very much if the artist is rolling in dough. other than a cease and desist i dont see what is to be gained.

 

[jcb]

based on what? i would think the likeness would have passed into "public domain". i do not know this for a fact. perhaps someone out there is versed on trademark and copyright law and could answer this. at any rate it would just get millions more people to look at it and i doubt very much if the artist is rolling in dough. other than a cease and desist i dont see what is to be gained.

Mickey's likeness is not in the public domain. Copyright and trademark.

 

[dalt01]

Mickey's likeness is not in the public domain. Copyright and trademark.

thanks...............details please?

 

[CBisMe]

I have to preface this by saying, I like all different kinds of art and art shows, and I have many artist friends.

My personal opinion is that is it just not very imaginative.

My take on the artist thought process:

"hmmm - what is a symbol that brings up a lot of emotion and is by it's nature controversial.. I know - a swastika.
Now what else.. I need something that some people will get all up-tight about. Yes - that's it - nakedness! I'll put some kind of nude on it. Brilliant!
Wait it's still missing something - contrast, that's it. I need something that is a symbol of something beloved, that represents happiness and joy, something everyone recognizes - I've got it! Mickey Mouse! Even better it's also a symbol for children. Oh yeah - this is great... my agent is going to love this!"

YAWN....

Alternatives? The Rebel Flag in the backdrop, with a bunch of witches and wizards....casting a spell on Santa Claus.

just send me the royalty checks

 

[jcb]

thanks...............details please?

From my limited recollection of copyright class, the Berne Convention provides that signatory countries agree to recognize other members copyrights.
Summary of Berne Convention.

Poland has signed the convention.

General Rules about Copyright

 

[kaligal]

Michaelangelo's statue of David which is housed in the Academia in Florence, was once described the same way. ...blasphemous, despicable, a plea for attention, hideous etc.

It's now considered to be one of the masterworks of the Renaissance.

As you seem to have a very strong reaction to the work (comparing it to a punch in the face)....maybe you just dont understand this art piece and will come to appreciate it eventually.

Yeah, maybe that's it. I'm just not bright enough to understand it. Maybe someday I will rise to the exalted level of people who will argue that a pile of dog poop is art, if they're told it is art.

I can only hope.

Also, I didn't compare it to a punch in the face.

 

[WebmasterPete]

Even bad art is still art - just like bad speech is still speech. At least in this country, both are constitutionally protected forms of expression. Fortunately, as adults, we have the capacity to ignore those things we find offensive. Just because some Italian idiot wants to paint a swastika and put Mickey's head on a nude body doesn't affect the reality of my existence one iota. If we find a particular piece of artwork offensive or distasteful, we don't go to that gallery, we don't buy that print. We can draw our own conclusions about the content of character of the artist and choose not to support his work. Same with free speech - we can find someones choice of words to be offensive, demeaning, bullying or otherwise inappropriate. Doesn't mean it's not free speech because its offensive. We can draw conclusions about the speakers character and choose not to surround ourselves or engage with those people.

It's the price you pay for being free and alive at the same time.

 

[challer]

And your entitled to your opinion of me.

It's all good.

 

[metalis4ever]

From my limited recollection of copyright class, the Berne Convention provides that signatory countries agree to recognize other members copyrights.
Summary of Berne Convention.

Poland has signed the convention.

General Rules about Copyright

I could be wrong but I believe that works of art are exempt from the copyright laws otherwise there would be no such thing as satyrical or parody art. But again I could be wrong I am on my Wii so I don't have the resources to back that assumtion up

The more I look at this piece of art the more I can see based upon my own worldview where the artist was coming from, this may be blasphemous but based on my interpritation I kind of like it Not saying that to enrage others just giving my opinion.