1. The PVLA seems to be the closest representation of the opinion I have on fair use. The more similar a work is to another, the more private it should be and the less profit it should receive. For example, if someone wants to print out a picture of a movie/actor and put it on their wall or use it for a poster advertising something, I see that as fair use. It is not claimed to be something new, it has no profit attached to it, and it's purpose is blatantly to draw attention/idolize something. It is copying, but fair copying. If one were to try to sell these poster or claim they made them and deserve profit, that is where error arises. For me, a new work must have a "so what?" factor for it to be original. If the piece is relatively the same and does nothing to change the picture physically or on it's purpose/meaning, it is not fair use. Warhol's work treads this line very carefully but, none the less, it was changed enough to become iconic and act as a representation of a culture and it's obsession with mass production.
2. About the project "Stolen Ideas", I found it pretty interesting. I believe that, in terms of modern art, it can use it's meaning and value when it's taken out of it's natural setting and placed in some pretentious museum. Banksy looks great on a public brick wall, David Hammons' installations looked great outside, and many modern artists host public, outdoor showing for their work. It is here that they were best displayed and explored, not when they are roped off and hidden from full absorption of the viewer. I can understand it for restoration and reservation purposes, but that only comes after a length of time where, inevitably, the piece would wither and be unable to be viewed. So I can appreciate what "Stolen Ideas" is doing in taking these pieces of art and commemorating them and, so long as it remains non-profit and they don't try to take charge of creating some "new" idea in doing this, their piece fits within fair use.
3. In the article about Shepard, frankly, Mark Vallen appears to just be a jealous ass. How he can attack Shepard but then defend other works, including his own, very similar to his is ludicrous. After watching "Exit Through the Gift Shop" and seeing Shepard work and his interactions, he really does not seem to be the type to be about finances and theft. As displayed in the film, he doesn't kick back and get rich off his work like others have done after "selling out", but he's still out there putting up posters and making new designs. Yes, his works often use a stencil of a real figure, but the messages he ties with them and how he uses them put it under fair use. Some may belittle his work to just Andre's face on another work's body, but Shepard's thoughts behind it and his backseat attitude to capitalism pushes it from being merely a copy/rip off. I can understand the debate over whether it's art or not, but in terms of it being theft, the pieces differentiate themselves enough to not be stolen, but like I said, the question of "art" remains unheard of.
3.
Honestly, I couldn't find very many pieces on that website that I could lie to myself and write about. I didn't see the art in many of them and found most of them to be cliche or hackneyed concepts. But one artist that I really liked, but sadly had little work on the site, was Michael Dixon. Upon entering his actual site, I found a goldmine of art I loved and felt personally connected to. A lot of Michael Dixon's art deals with being bi-racial and the stereotypes surrounding blacks and whites. He's a very good painter and drawer and he has the message to make his work seem intentional and passionate, and so my exhibition would be entirely on him.
