Irish Artist Turns Google Maps Screen Grabs Into Pricey Art

jackandtoby writes "Rappers sample prior works to turn out new tunes. This artist snatches satellite imagery of environmentally savaged sites from Google Maps to create gorgeous imagery reminiscent of Persian carpets. From the article: 'Using centuries-old patterns from Persian rug makers, with a nod to Afghan weavers who use tapestry to record vivid pictorial histories, this artist uses digital photography to create fabric that plays with fact and fiction, surveillance and invisibility. Thomas Smith reproduces classic motifs with Photoshop, at a level of detail one can only really experience in person, or (aptly for his medium) through point-and-click enlargement on his website.'"

Comments

Nice looking but...

[fustakrakich]

It's like looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope.

Re:Nice looking but...

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's like looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope."

For practical purposes, it IS looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope.

I wonder where this falls in the copyright infringement / fair use spectrum.

Re:Nice looking but...

[PopeRatzo]

Using your logic, you are saying I could take an Ansel Adams photograph, turn it upside down, and call it art of my own?

If he cut the Ansel Adams work into little pieces and used them to create a mosaic, absolutely yes.

Remember Warhol?

Can't do that.

[queazocotal]

This is a derivative work, and is not permitted under the google maps terms of service.
You can do it with openstreetmap.

Re:Can't do that.

[gstoddart]

This is a derivative work, and is not permitted under the google maps terms of service.

I was just thinking the same thing ... you can't take copyrighted images and turn them into 'art' unless the people who you got it from say OK.

I can't see how taking these images from Google Maps could even come close to something he's allowed to do.

Re:Can't do that.

[dragon-file]

Nah, google will let it slide. Then once he's made millions they will sue. No use suing a broke nobody right?

Re:Can't do that.

[Kjella]

I know you're trolling but...

1) I use google maps all the time and never once have I agreed to a terms of service. I've never even seen any such terms, nor been asked to agree to them.

Doesn't matter, it's copyrighted (not the subject of the photo, but the photograph of it - that's how nature photography is copyrighted). Google's terms of service grants you right beyond copyright law, if you don't accept them you don't have them - like the GPL.

2) You can make whatever you want from copyrighted works, the law only concerns itself when you try to commercially re-distribute the work.

Nope:

the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies (...)

And finally:

3) A derivative work, especially one for aritsitic purposes, is expressedly permitted under copyright law. Even a derivative work for profit!

Nothing is "expressedly permitted" as fair use, the factors will merely be taken into consideration and one is "the purpose and character of the use", where being transformative means it's more likely to be legal, merely derivative less. Also being for profit makes it less likely.

That's three for three with total drivel, well done.

Re:Can't do that.

[phantomfive]

Worse, it's not even artistic.

Is this really how far the art world has fallen? He wasn't even able to BS any interesting explanation about the topic.

I don't get the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

He just mirrors a screenshot horizontally then vertically. It takes a minute to do. Why are people going "oooh!" over this?

Re:I don't get the big deal

[CyberGrandad]

Not quite. Taking one Google Maps screenshot on most monitors could get you an image on the order of 1000 pixels wide. Photographers generally print their works at 300 ppi. So a single screenshot mirrored around would get you something roughly 6 to 7 inches squared. The gallery photo shows a print at least 5 feet tall. So it would take multiple screenshots pasted together. Maybe not thousands ... but more than one.

modern art

[Anonymous Coward]

This is really nothing special. He takes a city, flips it once or twice in photoshop and calls it art?

I am always amazed when walking through art museums how artists of the past centuries created such amazing work - the detail, the grandeur. I especially enjoyed walking through Rome; Such marvelous sculptures chiseled with rudimentary tools. Then one happens upon the "modern artists" of today. They were too fucking lazy to take more than a few whacks and call it art. Same goes for the paintings - modern artists really know how to capture the laziness of the 21st century, this guy included.

Re:modern art

[anagama]

Modern art is a conspiracy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupid.

Kurt Vonnegut

Re:modern art

[SolitaryMan]

You confuse the raw skill with an art.

If you don't actually study art history, it is very unlikely you will understand what is so great about Mona Lisa and why it is considered a masterpiece, while many art works of the time, painted as skillfully are not.

The art itself, first of all, is about conveying an *idea* and/or *emotion*. The medium and the implementation is always secondary. Some ideas are best expressed as sculptures, some as realistic paintings, some as buildings (cathedrals) and some as just a couple of brush strokes on a canvas. I've seen plenty of photo-realistic paintings, done with a great amount of skill, but which nevertheless were dull and boring as far as art is concerned. I've also seen a lot of cases where the painter should have written a short story, but instead he chose to create a painting, because this is where his/her skill lies (example of wrong medium).

You don't have to feel stupid, but you do have to make some effort to actually understand some piece of art.

In other words, skill is about the *artist*, while the art has to be about ... art itself. If you are looking at the painting and you think "hey, this guy is pretty good", it draws the focus from the *art* to the *artist*. It is just a show off. You you look at it and you think "this is really interesting (inspiring, pleasant -- whatever)", then this is a real art.

I suggest you, when looking at the painting, think of it this way: if you had the raw skill to paint something like this, would you actually want to do it?