10-02-2013, 04:22 PM
(10-02-2013, 02:53 PM)shoju Wrote: I'll be honest, Warhol's Mickey has always confounded me. There is no reason that should have been allowed. That's Intellectual Property. That's Disney's Copyrighted work. How he was able to get away with that, I have no idea.
My personal take on that is, it's Warhol. Now I'm saying this as a fan of Warhol, and someone who appreciates his work ethic (he wasn't just a foppish wig wearing proto-hipster dilettante, though he certainly cultivated that image) that's evidenced by his prolific work.
However, for better and worse I think he did usher that 'Warholian' effect. Some of his stuff is IMO similar to Duchamp's, in the sense that 'art can be whatever you can get away with'. His later period started veering towards this.
Unfortunately, I think I've seen way too much 'It's like Warhol' defense with none of Warhol's foundations or original work and thoughts.
I do like the pictures in Kandrathe's previous link. Too bad the text inside is too purpley prose.
TL;DR: Citing Warhol, is great if you're him. But I wouldn't bet on that defense when lawyers are involved.