Hello! Pleasant day, people of the world!

Allow me to confound your daily life once more and present another of my musings. (Actually, this question was already posed earlier by a local comic strip so it's not really entirely my thoughts)

Suppose I, hereafter referred to as Person A, crumpled a piece of paper and threw it away. Simple enough, 'no?

Suppose too that you, hereafter referred to as Person B, picked up that piece of crumpled paper and entered it in an art contest. There, it won loads of prizes for having been crumpled "in a way that gives insight to the inner depths of the subconscious mind", having a special meaning or just generally being nice and surreal.

Now, the question is, to whom does the credit go to? Should you credit Person A who has no knowledge of the great work he has done and thrown away? Or should it go to Person B who was aware of the potentials of a work that is not his to begin with? (or hers)

Actually, I already have an answer I am satisfied with but I'd like to see what other people think of

 

 

 

Reply

Wow...you need to get out more Still im just as bad! only i dont tell anyone of my thoughts!

My answer is: No-one should get any credit for something that isnt even art! its a piece of paper!! damn! But if this example was generalized to any piece of art that actually did deserve the title "art" then it would be person A as they created the "art", the other guy just found it and thus deserves only a minor credit such as "Bought to the public eye by person B"

Reply

Who's to say what is art and what isn't? People make gorgeous statues out of stuff that they scavenge from junkyards. My brother is a welder. If he puts together a statue out of scrap metal, is it art? Sure. He's doing something creative.

Anyway...as for the original question: Person A tossed the paper into the trash. Person B saw something unique about it and entered it into the contest. If anybody gets credit, it's Person B - if only because that person took the initiative to enter the paper in the contest.

That's just my opinion, though. Art and most art-related things are very much dependent on opinion, so take that for what it's worth

Reply

Ultimately I don't think it should come down to the drawing or the competition but the simple word "credit" in the question. Credit is a legal matter refreing to ownership. Person A threw the art away so when Person B claims ownership of it. Person A negates his own part in the story the moment he throws it away. Then again he also commited frawd when he posed it as his own artwork.

But it's a funny concept. There are alot of things to take into account. And two parties who are equally in the right. I mean if you think about it, both were superior in their own way.

Reply

Ahahaha! My mistake, mea maxima culpa! Again, I failed to foresee this. Anyway, the point of the discussion/argument is who gets the credit. Just suspend your beliefs and imagine it to be a piece of very artistically crumpled paper.



You and shadowx are both of the same opinion. Now, allow me to expand this analogy, suppose we do have a real artists, say, a sculptor (Person A) of native/indigenous crafts. Now, he and his tribespeople carved these objects by the hundreds every month but it is not for profit. Suffice to say that they just do it for fun and they couldn't care less what happens to the finished product. As a matter of fact, when I (Person B ) discovered their tribe, they all but showered me with several wooden and stone sculptures they have made over the years.

I then left the encampment and promised to regularly ship them blocks of wood and stone to satisfy their insatiable thirst to carve something. On the other hand, they just let me scoop up as much of their "garbage" as I can. If your opinions were to be followed, does that mean I can open a shop and claim those wood and stone sculptures as my own? In other words, isn't it also the same as exploiting the "gullibility" of the tribespeople?

Also, the example I gave must've been too simple. Suppose I (Person A) have been crumpling that paper for a week before I finally decided to chuck it in the dustbin. You (Person B ) on the other hand, took all of a mere 12 hours to pick it up, enter the contest and win awards. Should Person B take the credit simply because he/she knew the potential of an object while Person A was "too dumb to know the difference between a masterpiece and a pile of garbage"?

Simply put, if Person B took the credit, don't you think Person A had been "cheated" out of glory by Person B?

 

 

 

Reply

My view on this is that art is only art if you consider it to be art. For example, person A thought it was just trash, and threw it away. According to him, it's not art. That line of thinking eliminates them as being "responsible" for what other people see as "art".

But on the other side of that coin, Person B also is not the creator of that "art", as they simply took it from the trash and entered it into a contest. By nature, this makes person B no more than a publisher.

So who is responsible for creating this piece of art? Technically Person A is, because he's the person who made it be, but in reality, the piece of art has only been created by the people who see it as art, because if they didn't, it would still be trash.

Interesting concept.

[I agree with shadowx on one thing, it's just a crumpled piece of paper. I think art is considered art when only you, or very few other people, can produce the same thing. Anyone can crumple a paper.]

Reply