Monday, July 2, 2007

Answering some questions....

There must have been an article written recently about photographing people in public, because I'm being asked about this every day. I'd just like to add my personal thoughts on this subject. When I've got my camera and I'm in a place where I think people should expect a reasonable amount of privacy, I don't take pictures. That would be rude and probably be considered an invasion of privacy anyway. I'm conscious of that.

When I'm in a public space, outside or inside, and the use of a camera is not an issue, I freely take photographs of everything around me, if I find it interesting. That doesn't require permission from anyone who is captured in a photograph unless I publish that person's image in print, which I don't do. Photographs are a valuable tool for artists, no doubt - to catch action, light, color and figures - but I suggest it is not taken literally when creating a painting or drawing from that photograph. That's just boring to me. Part of the learning process is using references as a way of being somewhat accurate, but giving the scene more of your own interpretation.

I do enjoy painting people in museums, as you can see - and there are policies in each and every museum which I am totally aware of before I step through the door. Most privately-run museums forbid any use of cameras, obviously because the artworks are privately owned or on loan. A lot of special exhibitions are off limits to photography for the same reasons. If you're interested in using your camera inside of any space, I'd suggest you pay close attention to the rules and always be as non-invasive as possible. Simple as that.

6 comments:

Debbie Miller said...

Karin what about when you make your photo books of the paintings? Does that count as 'in print'?
Also, arent you sometimes 'constructing' your paintings? like taking an interesting person and putting them in a museum environment? rather than actually photographing all those scenes?
I sometimes paint from the photos I take, my camera is always with me and Ive often wondered about the 'rules' thanks for the info.

Michel McNinch said...

Well put, Karin.

Karin Jurick said...

No Debbie, it's a print of my painting, not of the original photograph. And yes, most often than not, my paintings are 'constructed' from a number of different references.
And to Michel, thank you. I appreciate that.

"van Vliet" Art Blog said...

Here is a link to The Artist Magazine are where they list 4 articles regarding copyright art. Perhaps the articles may prove helpful.

http://www.artistsmagazine.com/tam_qna_list.asp

Karin, I love your fascinating work. Keep it up!

diane ("serendipity") said...

In the interests of adding a touch of levity to this thread, I feel as if I should jump in here after having been "captured" by Karin in a museum viewing a painting. Of course, I didn't know it at the time. In fact, I was so lost in the paintings that I wasn't even aware Karin was in the room taking photographs. Indeed, I have never even met Karin, although I would genuinely like to do so,. Then, I could personally thank her for having created my likeness in a lovely painting aptly titled "Serendipity."

There was no invasion of privacy here and no violation of copyright laws. Just a beautiful moment in time captured and memorialized in a lovely little painting -- and with me in it to boot! May you all be so lucky! Thank you Karin, and best of wishes to you on your upcoming show.

Jelaine Faunce said...

I have this recurring nightmare that one day I'll be in the same city, the same location as Karin and her camera, and she'll put to canvas a shot of me contemplating my navel in public, looking like a complete dolt. However, I'll only sue if she does a painting of me with cellulite. She can make a fortune off my likeness if she wants so long as I look svelte. That is, not like myself at all.

Good luck with your show, Karin. You've worked hard and deserve every success.