Monday Sept 22 Just After 10am

Nice... I like the way the title has been inadvertently edited too..the elegance of the Kitch..

here's the urban dictionary def...Kitch(kitsch)"A form of art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy..."

And online dictionary's..."Sentimentality or vulgar, often pretentious bad taste, especially in the arts"

LOL...you may want to fix that...or maybe not... is it genius..or a happy accident?.. Either way.. I like! :-)

Barry,

It took me a moment to see what you meant. Kitch. Probably a Yiddisha word. Good of you to catch it.

Kitch is in these days. Remember or know of Jeff Koons? He is the richest American artist. Every single
piece he does is kitch. I should be so lucky.

In case you are wondering Barry, I have been known as McYid before.....

Dave

lol..McYid...

I think you should stick with the edit... and we'll go with sub-conscious genius.. :-)

Thanks Barry, have a good afternoon your time.

Dave

Barry permit me just one bump!! It is still Monday in Scotland.

Dave

..lol You bump all night long if you like Mr McYid..!

Well, that is certainly a head scratcher.

.......

Koons - personally I think the guy is like Donald Trump - always on the brink of bankruptcy.

Jasper Johns tops Jeff Koons by about $110M at $210M; Jeff Koons - a mere $100M.

I see a familiarity in this piece. I remember something Vermeer did that pops into my head.

LC - that is so funny - and the Vermeer is so much more.

I'm not getting the joke. Is there one?

Patricia, I think its contemporary art in the vein of Koons - an inside joke played on the viewer.

I just wonder where you got the image.

It looks to me like it is nothing more than the main subject of an old master painting silhouetted from the background. Is there something I am missing?

The Milkmaid by David Bridburg fon Vermeer.

Valerie,

Take a look at the original and in particular at the bread on the table to make a comparison.

Viktor,

van...von.....fon? Vermeer? I do like the joke. I have but one Vermeer von Bridburg
to give to my FAA.

Bradford,

I can not give out my sources, but the image and the copy of the image are
in the public domain. Completely in the public domain. Any slavishly made
photograph of a image/painting in the public domain is also in the public
domain. The photo can not be copyrighted, PERIOD.

Other comments on Koons, yes he has been in and out of hock. I dont know
that my statement that he is the richest American artist will stand. Probably not, but
he is hardly poor these days.

The point was Koons makes only kitsch. He just makes it larger.

uh oh Barry did you purposely misspell kitsch? .....I just went back on this
thread and see your insertion. I was reading to quickly again.....sheesh....

Dave

- and the Vermeer is so much more.

Roy,

I love and respect Vermeer's works.

But artistically he fumbled on this one piece. My job here was
to find a work of art that technically had some problems.

As I said to Valerie take a look at the bread in the original and then
again at my take in the piece. There is a big difference. And because
Vermeer's work is usually so technically great I can not sink my hooks
into any of his other works. "I have but one Vermeer von Bridburg for my FAA"

Dave

Bradford,

I might add that the image in large part can not be copyrighted by me either,but
the background/negative space and arrangement plus certain other artistic elements
are copyrighted by me/David Bridburg. I do have a copyright on my version.

Dave

I think I like your creativity, David, since you posted book of stamps of Rembrandt.
I was so confused: how this book got so many views. For now (until you post next masterpiece) you are composer
who use piano with just two keys and one of key is impression. Keep going.

Valerie, Roy et al,

This is a clear copy of The Milkmaid done by a site that prides itself
on its info on Vermeer.

Again look at the lack of detail on the tabletop, the bread slices....

http://www.janvermeer.org/the-milkmaid.jsp

Dave

Viktor,

I like the spelling of your name.

Thank you.

Abstract expressionists evoke responses from their audiences. That is a
major goal of modern art. And it is more than possible for the non believer.
If you have ever wanted to shout that sucks about splatters on a canvas, the
artist had your response in mind.

My art is to evoke a whole new set of responses. You can see them in this thread.

Dave

Viktor your correct...Valerie its is the old master Vermeers piece with the background cut away... which is what popped in my head....Viktor specified in words more clearly than I was able to at the moment

Ok I don't understand the copyright stuff your talkin about......is it more about the percent of change from the original that makes it pass as your version which means its ok?. Never mind Valerie and Victor I realize I put my 2 cents in after the fact.

It seems an aweful large percent is from Vermeers version regardless of the details added to the bread.....I dunno come on so you cut away the background and added detail to the bread......is this really where you wanna be with your creative visions

Hi LC,

Yes and more.....

Dave

@Mike Savad,

This court case from 1999 is for your information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

Exacting reproductions, slavishly done, of public domain works have no originality and can
not be copyrighted.

Dave

i'm trying to spot the difference, i read most of this while i was out on vacation, and while you said you changed the bread, i don't see the difference, and i'm not sure why a buyer would go for this one, when they could get the original version in its native background. i'm not getting it either. or what was changed exactly. i'm posting them side by side and see whats different besides the cut out.


---Mike Savad

At this point I think I should answer to this crowd. The background is not a background, it is what we call a negative space.
There is the kitchen maid and the space around her, the negative space.

Someone suggested that the "white" background made no sense. It is not a white background.

The negative space is a Pantone Cool Gray C1.

Cool means a tinge of blue. Warm means a tinge of red. Or warm is red and cool is blue.

The original has a problem. Warm colors move forward into the viewer's eyes faster than cool
colors. Perspectives can be build on light and shadow, colors ie reds and blues, lines, sizes of shapes...etc..

So Vermeer was straining to have a perfect perspective, but screwed up his color scheme putting
a slight red hue onto the sun lit wall behind the kitchen maid.

Vermeer compounded this problem (not a mistake though) with green and blue on the table.

So the foreground in the original was not striking your eyes as fast as the wall behind the subject was hitting
your eyes. The perspective needs to be red to blue, front to back.

Also there is no shadow on the wall from the milkmaid in the original. The wall is well enough behind the milkmaid that her
shadow does not hit the wall. Instead Vermeer paints light on the inside edge, near the window, of the milkmaid's robes.
He then puts shadows on the outside edge of the milkmaid's clothing to create the perspective.

So when I selected the milkmaid I had her three dimensional character all made up within the selection.

By putting her in a newly stamped cool gray negative space I unleash Vermeer tormented perspective.

The details....if you look at images the same size, original and newly stamped.....come out much better for the
viewer in the newly stamped.

The technique, Photoshop, comes into question, because I tend to believe that most digital artists are misusing it.
How we as a society today use Photoshop is a free for all.

An example....

Would Vermeer have painted a waterfall behind his milkmaid inside the walls of the room?
Why would we destroy all perspectives in the art works made today?

Perspective is a tool, it is a trick, it is something viewers are left to wonder about and look at for longer
periods of time. Why destroy art to make art? Why indeed.

My making the Kitchen Maid does not answer any of those questions at all. It begs those questions.

Dave

I might add I had to refine the edge of my selection and did that somewhat extensively.

So my copyright is not on the central selection, but the arrangement of the cut out in the
cool gray negative space, and the refinement of the edge which distorts decently for the
better how the selection is perceived. A bit like a kid who can use a pair of scissors better
than the next kid who would leave jagged edges as he cuts.

For now this is one of the more academic of my pieces. The others made so far do not have
such gimmicks. With possibly the exception of Mural II. Mural II is next. Well as I said
I am not a good writer.

The other pieces I have made aim more at my sense of aesthetics. All of the coming works
will be different from Into The Night and The Elegance of The Kitchen Maid.

They might make some wish for the old days, last Monday. (humor)

Dave

David, I don't think your choice of background (negative space) is well integrated with Vermeer's painting. I'm calling it background because it has sharp detail and texture, and isn't amorphous negative space (as the term is often used). My issue with the integration is that there should be diffuse light reflected back onto the rear of the model, where you've preserved the deep shadows, particularly on the right side. This is second year photography stuff. The way you've done it, you've created an unnatural, cut-out, pasted-in looking thing (not sure what to call it). That being said, it doesn't work for me.

Patrick

I would agree that he used camera obscura,so did Caravaggio and maybe Rembrandt in the "nightwatch".I'm not a big fan of Veermer's work,excellent for baroque art back then,but it's almost a modern work of art.What he did back then,we can do now.There are many who can copy a Veermer.You can see camera obscura mistakes from Caravaggio.But I think Nerdrum says it well when He talks about Rembrandt's "The return of the Prodigal son" :-You can find hundred mistakes in that painting,it is still the best painting in the world.

There are good mistakes and bad mistakes.The bad mistakes makes the artwork look stupid and the good mistakes make it to a masterpiece.The great master's of the baroque are master's over nature,that's what makes it a masterpiece and not a Illustration. Like Velasquez said:You need to destroy a painting to finish it.

Mistakes don't destroy a great work of art.And not all art work by a master is a masterpiece.But! If you have made a masterpiece you have made a work of art that many want to copy.


David

I think your work is interesting

the court?

basically i can take your image - which you didn't change, just removed the background, and make my own background, and call it mine. that's whats going on here. it would be impossible to prove who took the original image, so its kind of moot.


negative space? anything behind the subject is a background. the wall she was against - was negative space. this is a cutout.


how vermeer made it - seems to work fine since many know of this work. any tinges, are fading paints. but mostly peoples eyes won't care about the color so much, they will focus on her, not the wall or its color. the only reason we see her in yours is because there is nothing else in there to look at. people also don't focus on warm or cool colors - i don't know who made up that idea. people will focus on brighter vs darker. but they they may enjoy warm or dark depending on their mood. or the mood of the image. in this case she's inside by the window, and warm is better for this.

perspective has nothing to do with color. its shape, angle, highlight and shadow. there wouldn't be any shadow on the wall because the light wasn't on her side, it was on her front, the shadow is on the floor along with the other stuff on the floor. the eyes are lead to the action of pouring and nothing else really matters at that point.

the main problem with your background is - you chose a solid color that has a metal like line across it. it's abrupt and doesn't match the rest. if you at least matched the background to the type of image - like used a cracked wall in a neutral color, it would fit in better. but a solid background is the easy way out. not to mention the paintings cracks are now gone. if a buyer wanted it, they might want an alternative, but it should look like something the original artist made.

---Mike Savad

Hiya David,

I don't get it. Furthermore, I don't want to get it. I wonder how far this thread would have gone if you took some unknown artist's work and digitally removed his background, then called it a "new" piece of art. It seems to me that you are trying to make a name for yourself by using a master's piece of art to accomplish that. I really think that this falls into the same category as a tourist who has his picture taken standing in front of the Grand Canyon or a famous monument. All I can say David is take a sheet of white paper, create some original work of "your" art and then post it here for critiques and comments. That takes a lot of courage my friend.

harold shull best post on this thread

Hal < wink >

i agree with harold...

---Mike Savad

I also agree with Harold.

Harold,

I like your images from the original Star Trek. How did you get the rights?

Just curious.

Dave

Walter,

I like your images of buildings and bridges. The architects who created them were
good to great artists in my book.

Dave

Marlene,

You use a lot of simple backgrounds of one or two solid colors in your abstracts.

Nice.

Dave

Mike Savad,

In this image you use so many brand names. That area of copyright law is not my expertise. It boarders on
Trademark law and probably often is trademark infringement.

Nice work.



Dave

Lala

We are waiting to see your art. Looking forward to a good show.

Dave

David, you mean of my 1200 images posted? Lol
Let's see what else you have.

And we're still waiting to see YOUR art, Dave. Either put up or shutup.

David, I was hired by a toy company who purchased the rights from Paramount Studios to produce Action Figure Toys. I am the original artist who painted the portraits of those Star Trek characters from the first TV series. David, I may be wrong about this but I think an artist has the "right" to paint, draw or photograph anything he wants. But and this is a big BUT, he doesn't have the right to sell that image. If you would have posted your image as anything but an original and given the proper respects to the original artist, I don't think you would have gotten such negative comments.

Marlene, wink right back at ya. BTW, Happy Shanah Tovah and have a great and prosperous New Year..

Folks,

Two dimensional art is the practice of getting a three dimensional reality put
in the wrong place, a canvas.

We all live in glass houses. Lets not have a stone fight.

Dave

Harold,

If you were "hired" by a company to do those works, GENERALLY the company holds the copyrights. NOT YOU.

Dave

David, just one more thing... I noticed that you signed your name to this digitalized image of Vermeer's Kitchen Maid. That's a BIG No, No!

David, you are absolutely right about the company that hired me owning those rights. That is why I haven't put them up for sale. I have done nothing wrong.

I may be a bit dim, but isn't it a two-dimensional object, i.e. a picture, that you're copying? I use 'copying' loosely, because you didn't copy it, you borrowed a copy that somebody else made.

What I see happening here is the attacks on people are making their way into the thread. When the attacks begin, the insults and mudslinging starts, and people find themselves in hot water, so to speak.

Just sayin'

Harold,

The image is 60 plus percent cool grey. The image is my arrangement. Why would it be a big no no?


BTW if you read the descriptions I give proper mention to the original artists.

The works I am using are in the public domain I can sell them in any manner I want.

Dave

Jeff,

May I request this thread by closed. Those who have enjoyed this art and the thread are happy.
And those who dont like the art are not happy. At this point no one will change their minds
or should be asked to change their minds.

Thanks,

Dave