[georgieporgie]

Uniqueness is a qualification of artiness as far as I'm concerned. Merely reproducing something is not art, it's direct reproduction. Introducing unique style would be art. This slight pixelation is insufficient to qualify as such.

I never called the pixelated version flippant. Rather, I called the treatment of the original flippant. Also, don't project a dislike of pixel art onto me.

[FlemishBeeCycle]

> Merely reproducing something is not art, it's direct reproduction. Introducing unique style would be art.

One could then argue that photographs are merely reproduction of reality, and therefore not art. I fail to see why you think photographs introduce unique style but pixel art does not.

> The photo in question was beautifully captured, and the flippant way it's being treated is rather sad.

I apologize for suggesting that you dislike pixel art, but that's how I this sentence reads to me.

[georgieporgie]

One could then argue that photographs are merely reproduction of reality, and therefore not art. I fail to see why you think photographs introduce unique style but pixel art does not.

Because that photography does not merely reproduce reality. The camera, lens, film type, lighting, everything produced an entirely unique image[1]. Furthermore, if you were sitting there, observing his playing, you would not have seen what came out in that photograph. That's what makes photography something other than mere reproduction. That's where the art comes from.

Regarding pixel art, I don't really consider this piece to even be pixel art. It's just a somewhat blocky rendition of a photograph. Great pixel art is more akin to Picasso's deconstruction of a bull:

http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/animals_in_art/p...

Great pixel art deconstructs an image into the minimal set of elements necessary to convey the original idea. The 'pixel art' in question really does just looks like a few photoshop filters applied to a very well-known photograph. Or a bad resizing of a thumbnail.

[1] I get the impression that the "photography is reproduction" crowd don't understand technical aspects of photography, like lens selection, aperture, dynamic range, the effect that film selection makes, etc. Yes, a midday, f/16 snapshot of "The Bean" may not entail meaningful artistic qualities, but that sort of distinction tends to be along the fuzzy line we draw between 'snapshots' and 'photography'.

[regularfry]

If we are lazy for a second and combine the concepts of art and originality/copyrightability (which I'm guessing from your comments is broadly your position), why would gallery shots of fine art accrue their own copyright, and not this pixelated example?

[georgieporgie]

why would gallery shots of fine art accrue their own copyright

I don't know what this means. Examples?

[regularfry]

Here's an example (from http://www.tate.org.uk/about/media/copyright/):

" In terms of artistic works, if the artist is alive, or has been dead for less than 70 years, there will be a separate copyright in the work itself that is additional to the copyright in the photographic reproduction."

Here you have a gallery stating that there is copyright in the photograph of a work of art, distinct from that in the work of art itself. As I understand it, this is standard for reproduction photos.

[georgieporgie]

In that photo, the gallery art in question occupies less than 1/4 of the frame, and is partly obscured. The photo is composed primarily of green background, contrasted with a blonde girl in red.

I don't understand how that is a 'reproduction' photo at all.

[regularfry]

I don't understand how you can have read the page I linked to and have come away with the impression that I was in any way referring to that specific photo.

Here's a simpler example of the type of work which I, and the Tate, are primarily talking about: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N01543

See the "Digital image (c) Tate, London" watermark on the image? Given that the original painting is 122 years old and therefore well out of copyright itself, the gallery are asserting that there is copyright in the photograph of the painting.

Here's another one: http://www.tate-images.com/results.asp?image=N06032

In this case, the painting itself is only 61 years old, so the original is still in copyright, as indicated by the "© The estate of L.S. Lowry/DACS 2011" entry on the right; note that there is still a "Digital image © Tate, London" watermark on the reproduction photo: one "orginal" work, two copyrights.

Having a quick google around, there's an interesting short article at http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm about a US case brought by a UK company which seems to clarify that the position is different in the US and in the UK: in the UK, there is still presumed to be copyright in photographs of artwork, while there is not in the US, so it's a little more complicated than I thought (who knew?).