Back when I built this fourth generation of my site, I made a rather large, and somewhat unusual decision, which has sat fairly quietly in my footer, largely unnoticed. When I launched this site, I decided to own up to my own advocacy of art for the masses, and I released all images of my own creation on this site under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license.

In a time when creative professionals are all cracking down on copyright, and protecting their works, choosing to release all my own art under such a license might seem like a very odd move. But the truth is, unlike a lot of working professionals, I don’t rely on the work on this site to make my living. Design is what pays my bills, buys me beer, buys me food, buys me camera, buys me paint. And, that leaves me in a rare spot for an artist: I’m completely un-reliant on the marketability of my pieces to make a living, allowing me to focus on exploring ideas, questions, and manifestos out of pure interest and passion.

It also gives me a bit more freedom in how I can distribute myself. I can focus on making sure the most number of people possible have access to my art, and that they feel they too can have it around. Because, let’s be honest, there’s not a whole lot of point in exploring ideas and messages and creating works of art if we’re not going to let people see them, experience them, live with them, and the like.

So, a mere couple of months before my upcoming show at Oranje, I’m making what I feel is a pretty bold statement about how I stand behind those philosophies by making all my works available to download in large form for printing. This is the second bit of this decision that will seem odd to some, so, I’d like to explain a few things I had in mind when I decided to do this, and to explain to you what’s up:

1. All these files are still licensed under that CC-BY-NC-SA license. This is to encourage individual and private use, as well as to encourage people to use my ideas as launching points, or to remix my pieces into new works. I’m a big proponent of the idea that strict copyright law when it is not necessary (such as to protect a livelihood) is detrimental to the creative flow of a society. So long as I’m attributed, the works aren’t sold, and anyone using elements of my piece in future pieces accepts these same terms, I feel I’ll have contributed more to the art world than by locking my stuff down.
2. Paintings aren’t the same printed. Period end. A photo of my painting will at best look like it, and at worst fail to capture most of what makes seeing one of my pieces in person the experience that it is. A painting is a physical object, and is inherently unique. By releasing images of my paintings, I don’t feel I’m in any way undercutting my own market for selling them should I wish. I am, however, allowing people who would never buy a painting otherwise a chance to at least experience my work, to display it, and to maybe introduce me to even more people. My paintings, as such, are available to download at the same size as I shot them, usually around 5-8 megapixels.
3. Photography is trickier. It’s also much easier and cheaper to make than it ever was in the film day. So, to that end, I’m releasing the photos at 8×10″ @200 dpi. More than large enough to make personal prints for yourself. I will never sign a print I have not made myself, however. My photographs will still be produced in small, limited editions, and those will be signed and hand-numbered. I will also make every attempt to sell these actual prints at a low enough price to be affordable to anyone wanting to own a work of art, no matter your line of work.
4. I do not accept commercial photographic work often, unless it lines up solidly with my own artistic goals. At rhe least, these terms do not apply to anything I do on a commercial or contract basis. My free-to-the-world model is for my own art, where I can afford it. I do not want to take food out of the mouths of any professional who relies on selling and licensing their work to live. That would be amazingly unethical of me, and would do more damage than good. My personal fine art works qualify for this open policy, but I encourage anyone wanting commercial work done to seek out an experienced professional in their area, and to be aware that there is a cost and value to the services these people offer. Even in a world racing to find the bottom of the price market.

And that’s that. Make sense to everyone? My goal here is to make it possible for people to consume art, because I think we need to break down this artificial barrier erected by elitism and cost that prevents people from being able to address art the same way they do literature, or any other work rooted in idea and attempting to convey that outwards.

If you would like to make use of my new policy, just click the “i” button below any gallery viewer. In the information overlay, you’ll see a download link for any piece with an available large download. What you do from there, well, I leave that to you.

 

Anyone remember Jonathan Foerster (@atleastwedream)? I talked about him back when MEA was having his closing reception? Well, color me surprised (and a bit happy) today as I’m browsing a link I followed from Anthony Pipkin’s Twitter (@apipkin) for 777 HD Wallpapers, and what do I see linked if not “Sonnet” by Jonathan Foerster (which was the very image I used in my post about him, nonetheless).

Now, though, the only question is: I don’t see Mr. Foerster being credited anywhere for his work (or, many of the other artists for that matter), did anyone stop to, you know, ask Jonathan his permission to use his art? I mean, while I’m all about sharing art openly, you might notice that copyright down at the bottom of my page thinks people should still merit attribution when publicly posting works. Is that really so much to ask? I mean, they’re already listing the post title, why not credit Jonathan for what I know first hand from talking with him was hours upon hours upon hours of work to create that image?

I’ll have to see if I can get ahold of him about that. In the meanwhile, you can peruse a large collection of other excellent works, but keep in mind that most of them are unattributed, and anything you like on there was done somewhere along the line by an artist who at least deserves a mention for their efforts, you know?

So, this is kinda all over the internet, so don’t let me be the one to not post it myself. Comic book artist J. Scott Campbell (DangerGirl, Spider-Man, Army of Darkness) has inked up his own interpretations of Disney princesses (and one queen, obviously evil). I’m still pretty spent from a lot of biking and lack of caffeine, so, I’ll leave any open debate about the merits of these as art to you, dear readers. Some topics I’m sure you’ll want to cover are:

1. How inappropriate it is to sexualize child icons
2. How solidly executed his renditions are.
3. How comic books, like video games, aren’t art, silly Martinez.
4. Where the hell is Jasmine?
5. Ponderings on how this affects copyright, and how long you think it’ll be before Disney lays the smack down on somebody.
6. Sleeping Beauty’s tits (and their corresponding niceness).

And… go!