Winter always comes around and temps plummet. The question is, are you inside where it’s cozy or are you outside with the elements? We asked our LIMarts members to answer that question and create that world. With more than 100 LIMarts members, there could be more than 100 ways to say, “Baby, it’s cold outside!”
It’s the 4th annual LIMarts members exhibition so come and see how each artist depicts winter. On display in the Visitors Center from December 1, 2017 through January 28, 2018. Free admission in January! Click here to see photos from the opening reception held Friday, December 1.
The Long Island Museum’s art exhibition , Baby, It’s Cold Outside is currently open to the public for viewing. To mark the closing of the exhibition on Sunday, January 28, 2018, the LIM is hosting an Artists’ Meet & Greet Open House from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Visitors Center. The public is invited to participate. Visitors will have the special opportunity to meet the artists who inspired the exhibition and give them a first-hand look into their creative minds. This will be a casual afternoon with no formal program. Artists will be present in the gallery to answer questions and mingle with visitors.
The Huntington gallery’s “Harvest of Artists”for 2017 showcases an exceptional array of Long Island artists exhibiting their talents in painting, watercolor, graphics, photography, multimedia, printmaking, sculpture and more. The exhibition runs December 2, 2017 thru January 14, 2018. There is something that will appeal to everyone. Great time to make your holiday gift purchases!
Artists on exhibit include, the works of the late pop artist (associated with Andy Warhol),Steven Kaufman, the popular watercolorist, Lorraine Rimmelin, and Caroline Kaplowitz, whose artwork has been displayed in Soho and an exhibit of her sculptures and paintings-in the Nassau County Museum of Art, Caroline Kaplowitz, and many more prominent artists in the Long Island community. Among them is Simon Hickey, the gifted two- time winner of the MOMA assistant curator juried EXPO exhibition (Hosted annually by BJ Spoke Gallery). besides the illustrious members of the community participating in this exhibition.
Members of the gallery will not be exhibiting during this Harvest of Artists Event. The response from the LI Artist community has been so great that the BJ Spoke Gallery’s members have generously decided not to turn any artist away. Every artist who entered on time will be exhibited. Forty-five artists from all over LI are showing their work, each with one or two entries. “We’ve handed over the keys” to empower our fellow artists, especially those who’ve never shown in a gallery before.
Gallery members’ have been widely exhibited and usually show in the gallery every month, except during Expo and Paperworks exhibitions. Some members have been featured in The Hamptons‘ Dan’s papers, ( Cindy Shechter, most recently), the Long Island Pulse (John A. Bell) other Long Island and New York publications, and television. The BJ Spoke Gallery has been nominated as Best Gallery on Long Island by the Long Island Press. All art aficionados are welcome.
The popular and venerable co-op gallery is a non-profit organization, completely owned, managed and operated by artist members. It is usually open Tuesday through Sunday, 11 AM to 5 PM.
The reception for the Harvest of Artists has been rescheduled, due to inclement weather. The Reception is set for Saturday, January 6, 2018 from 6 to 9 PM. Refreshments will be served.Please join the celebration and mingle with the artists.
Enter one work for $50 and the second one is at half the usual entry fee. Two for $75. You must not exceed 36 inches in any direction. You can do it. You can download the loan agreement, and you can even register and pay online or in person. Just come on down to BJ Spoke Gallery at 299 Main Street, Huntington, NY with your artwork and get into the show, before the wall fill up!
The December reception will be fun, and friends and family are all welcome. It’s likely you will spark interest in your work and even a sale is likely, during the holiday shopping season.
BJ Spoke Gallery is proud to announce Nicolette M. Pach’s Solo Fabric-Multimedia Exhibition, “Environmental Consequences” opens on November 1 and runs thru November 29, 2017.
The public is welcome to attend a special reception at the gallery on Sunday, November 5, from 4-7 PM.
The artist will give a talk with questions and have a questions and answer period starting at 5:30 PM.
Refreshments will be provided. The event is free of charge.
Nicolette Pach is a rare and gifted artist, whose successful career in law and the judicial system has not diminished her drive to also pursue her passion for art and craft. It is in her DNA. As the daughter of a sculptor mother and painter father, and grandniece of artists, , she was drawn to the artistry of quilt making, which led to batik, and then to multimedia fabric art. Ms. Pach’s mastery of design and a vast combination of natural and recycled plastic materials has resulted in extraordinarily beautiful showpiece wall hangings.
Nicolette’s studies with the women who were at the center of the arts ,originally forged in the quilting and embroidery circles of American history, has come full circle into the advanced circles of multimedia fabric artists showing and selling their masterpieces in some of the best galleries in New York and worldwide.
As a long-time resident of Huntington Bay, Nicolette Pach lives close to nature. Her lush garden, trees, rolling hills,rocks, ocean and beach have inspired her design motifs and inclusiveness in the creation process. Her works of fabric art capture the beauty and articulates her appreciation and respect for the Long Island environment she knows and loves. The necessity to honor and pay tribute to Long Island’s natural heritage is her artful mission. It is such a rare spectacle, the walls of the BJ Spoke Gallery will be draped in her visionary display. The doors of the gallery will open to the public an unusual opportunity to engage this masterful artist, and learn about the creativity, skills, techniques and materials used in the process of constructing such a tangible and yet unusual and precious art form. Works by Ms. Pach are available for purchase.
National League of American PEN Women Long Island Branch Art Exhibit South Nassau Unitarian Universalist Congregation / 228 South Ocean Avenue, Freeport, NY (516) 623-1204 / Gallery Open 10am to 1pm Tuesday – Friday (best to call first) and Sunday mornings Art Exhibit from October 22nd to November 19th / in conjunction with Long Island Composers’ Alliance concert “Love, Life and the Hereafter” on October 22nd at 3pm to 5pm / admission charge Melissa Assael / Phyllis Coniglio Katherine Criss / Christine Greene Kay W. Ray with guest artist Karen Lynne Kirshner who is the daughter of former American PEN Woman Betty B. Kirshner Since 1897, the National League of American PEN Women has been encouraging, recognizing, and promoting creative work of a professional standard in Art, Letters, and Music. This exhibit by visual arts members of the Long Island Branch includes acrylic, oil and watercolor painting as well as photography and digital collage. Most works are for sale.
How do I like to spend my birthday? In a favorite museum. Top on the list is the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I was just there a week or two ago. Next on the list is the Museum of Modern Art. Max Ernst, the Dadaist/surrealist known to experiment, was featured. I tend to do surrealistic abstract work some of the time and have related to the Dadaists, although I did not paint that way with them in mind. I just do it naturally when it happens. I definitely saw my own way of seeing and similarities in Max Ernst’s body of approximately 100 works on exhibit.
Louise Bourgeois‘s exhibit of more than 300 works, in a sort of self-protrait through her self-expression, was an added bonus, which began with a giant sculpture of a spider and a small cage for a human, as if the spider is the superior being. The disturbance over being a woman subjected to male domination and sexuality, and the obligation of motherhood (the artist had four boys) seemed the prevailing message I perceived by the deeply psychological images presented. I have not read about her life, but in confirmation of my observation, one of the displays stated that Louise Bourgeois was in psychotherapy for many years. I was not an instant fan of her work, but I am intrigued.
I visited the Bronx Botanical Garden on Friday, in order to see Dale Chihuly’s glass sculpture exhibition. I was struck by the unanticipated splendor integrated into the floral and other plantlike arrangements in the Bronx’s wonderland. It beats any Adventureland or Disneyland. The Bronx Botanical Garden is a perceptive person’s answer to the ghettos of inner city life. It is splendor and beauty. It is fresh and alive. I thoroughy enjoyed not only seeing Chihuly‘s one of a kind in originality glass statements, but I enjoyed mother nature in its diversity too!
It is hard to believe that my parents had lived in the South Bronx before moving to Long Island and I visited my grandparents there as a young child and yet I never visited the Bronx’s massive garden, equal to more hundreds of football fields. The acreage is enormous and the variety of activities researchers are working on at the site is helping our planet and the survival of endangered species of plant and tree life, which in turn helps the cycle of life for many more creatures, including the best of us humans.
I do believe it was my first trip to the New York Botanical Garden of the Bronx.There is also the New York Botanical Garden of Brooklyn, which I can’t remember visiting either.
Back to the one in the Bronx. You would never know you were in a city, and certainly not the notorious Bronx (by the Fordham subway station.) I wondered if my grandparents ever strolled on the property or checked out the rose garden there. I can’t ask them now. I wish I could have discussed it with them. Too late for that. Too late to ask my mother if she spent time there. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t. I will never be sure.
I am sure now that I was there and I like it, in fact, I loved it, with or without Chihuly. The best event is at night, when there is a special light show with the glass sculptures in play. Tickets were sold out for Friday night, so we couldn’t attend, but you may be able to do so before the exhibit ends on October 29.
Included in the price of admission, we had a free tram tour of the gardens with educational stops along the way, and a free tour inside the main greenhouse, where the sculptures were concentrated, and we dined at the cafe on the premises, which was costly, yet convenient, even though there were places recommended on Arthur Avenue and elsewhere.
The Bronx Botanical Garden has a well stocked gift shop. I purchased several items, beginning with a necessity – a sweatshirt, as Friday was a chilly day and I didn’t bring a jacket. I also bought a t-shirt, cap and a woven/spun butterfly pin (as parts of my early birthday gift). This is the pin, which a learned scientist friend believes if resting, it may be a moth, not a butterfly. I prefer to believe it is a butterfly. I won’t deliberately wear a moth!
Don’t forget to don those comfortable sneakers and head over to Huntington’s Main Street for the fun and visual Art Walk. It begins at 11 am and ends at 4 pm. Check out the BJ Spoke Gallery, and enter the raffle to win a basket of art-related goodies, meet the artists, buy some great art or just look (no photographs allowed), as one of the several artsy stops along Huntington’s mapped route.
Followup:The art walk this year was a hit! The gallery was hoping’ with lots of visitors and the artists milled around talking about their work and inspiration to interested artists and collectors. Members of the media came just after I left to attend the concert and NAPW art reception in Freeport’s Universalist Unitarian Congregation. BJ Spoke Gallery has been nominated as best gallery on LI, so you really should stop by and then y0u will surely vote for us. We’re like family, Join us. BJ Spoke has an artists circle meeting twice each month, and we’re sponsoring a songwriter’s concert and poets come to readings at the gallery. We are all about culture and art at 299 Main Street, Huntington, NY.
Richard Prince Wasn’t the First Artist to Face Copyright Battles—Just Ask Warhol and Rauschenberg
BY JESSICA MEISELMAN
OCT 10TH, 2017 8:53 PM
In recent years, the controversy surrounding some of artist Richard Prince’s works has again cast a spotlight on appropriation art and copyright infringement. His “New Portraits” series, created in 2014, consists simply of screenshots of other people’s Instagram posts with comments by Prince. The series prompted an ongoing lawsuit in 2015 when Donald Graham, one of the people whose photograph Prince used without permission, sued the artist. Prince has invoked fair use, a legal defense that permits certain use of copyright works, in that case. He is one of many artists who have turned to fair use to defend their appropriation, but few, if any, have been quite as successful in court as Prince.
Most disputes end in settlements rather than judgments in favor of the artist, very few of whom ever take a case all the way to a judge. Those who shied away from court include Andy Warhol and Robert Rauschenberg, two of the first artists who, in the 1960s and 1970s, faced legal action for appropriating others’ photography. Despite the fact that both artists had, by today’s standards, a decent argument for fair use, these early disputes settled out of court. But their cases illustrate how fair use law has evolved over the decades, and how appropriation artists ran into legal hot water well before Prince logged onto Instagram.
In 1976, while flipping through Time magazine, photographer Morton Beebe spotted a familiar image: It was a rough reproduction of his photograph Mexico Diver (1970), in a 1974 Rauschenberg collage entitled Pull (Hoarfrost Series). He initially sent Rauschenberg a letter, expressing his disappointment in particular because Rauschenberg had taken “the lead of protecting artists rights.”
Rauschenberg’s letter in response admitted that the image that he used was taken by Beebe. But Rauschenberg considered his use of this image and others non-infringing because he “consistently transformed these images sympathetically with the use of solvent transfer, collage and reversal as ingredients in the compositions which are dependent on reportage of current events and elements in our current environment hopefully to give the work the possibility of being reconsidered and viewed in a totally new concept.”
Rauschenberg’s letter details his understanding of the use of the image as fair because it was transformative, which, despite its merits, was not a criteria for “fair use” at the time. “Fair use,” prior to 1978, was a narrow doctrine not yet codified into law and many cases invoking it focused on educational use and newsworthy exceptions to copyright. Despite Rauschenberg’s impassioned plea, Beebe later sued Rauschenberg for copyright infringement. The parties eventually settled the case in September of 1980 before a judge was able to weigh in. Beebe accepted $3,000 (a little under $10,000 today), a copy (one of 29) of Rauschenberg’s Pull collages, valued at $10,000 by the early 2000s, and the promise to be credited in the future.
Beebe indicated in an interview with the publication ARTnews that “his legal costs were mounting and he didn’t want to risk losing the case on ‘a technicality,’” hinting that the often onerous burdens placed on copyright holders by the law of the time, such as publication requirements, could have been his case’s downfall. Rauschenberg’s lawyers maintained the position that the artist’s use of the photograph fell under an incredibly broad construction of fair use because of the way Rauschenberg’s collage transformed Beebe’s original image. During the dispute, the presiding judge voiced “concern” over Rauschenberg’s reliance on Beebe’s original image, regardless of his transformation. However, the willingness of both sides to settle reflects the uncertainty of copyright litigation at the time.
Similarly, in 1966 Warhol was sued by photographer Patricia Caulfield for copyright infringement stemming from his use of one of her images of hibiscus flowers. Warhol increased the contrast of the images, replaced the detailed petals with simplified monochrome flowers, and his characteristic pop art color palette. After first exhibitingFlowers at the Leo Castelli Gallery in 1964, Warhol sold hundreds of prints of the image. Caulfield’s case also settled before trial; she was given $6,000 (around $25,000 today), two of the paintings (one for her lawyer), and a royalty on future reproductions of her photograph. After the settlement, Caufield expressed exasperation; she did not have “the time, money or energy to pursue the matter further.” As for Warhol, he resolved to use only on his own photographs after the settlement.
Both of these disputes took place before the 1978 implementation of the Copyright Act of 1976. This overhaul of copyright law shifted legal standards for copyright protection of the underlying work and explicitly addressed fair use, providing more clarity on its use. The act established the four-pronged test for fair use, which requires a court to consider 1) the nature of the original work, 2) the purpose and character of the new work, 3) the amount and substantiality of the work, and 4) the effect of the use on the market for the original work.
The act’s codification of the fair use doctrine attempted to streamline its previously inconsistent and, as evidenced by the sheer number of casesinvoking it, difficult application. Prior to the act, the lack of concrete guidelines for the common law doctrine meant that different courts applied different criteria. Additionally, before the act came into effect, federal copyright protection was limited to works that complied with onerous publication and notice guidelines. Many works fell short of these requirements and would be considered to have fallen into the public domain.
The arguments of these early appropriation artists (that their work transformed the appropriated photographs) are supported by the fact that both resulting pieces are strikingly different from the original works and clearly incorporate stylistic elements unique to Warhol and Rauschenberg. However, despite the merits of their cases, Warhol and Rauschenberg’s preference for settlement would remain the strategy of choice for many artists facing similar matters in later years. That is, until Prince was sued for reproducing images of rastafarians from Patrick Cariou’s 2000 book of photography “Yes Rasta,” using them to create a collage series he called “Canal Zone.” Prince, after an initial loss, eventually prevailed on appeal. The court held that his “composition, presentation, scale, color palette, and media are fundamentally different and new compared to the photographs, as is the expressive nature of Prince’s work.”
In court testimony, Prince himself indicated that his work did not “have a message” and that he did not intend to create works with a new meaning or message. Although this would seem to undermine a fair use argument premised on transformation, the court held that “what is critical is how the work in question appears to the reasonable observer, not simply what an artist might say about a particular piece or body of work. Prince’s work could be transformative even without commenting on Cariou’s work or on culture, and even without Prince’s stated intention to do so.”
It is unclear what effect a judgment like Cariou would have had on art from the Warhol era, had it been decided then. But it might not have been decided in the same way, especially because the fair use doctrine had not been codified at the time. Regardless of the merits of Warhol and Rauschenberg’s cases—particularly in view of Prince’s success in the Cariou case—there is no denying that subsequent changes in the legal and cultural landscape have buoyed the possibility of success for artists who today rely on fair use.
Prince’s approach of testing the evolving fair use doctrine in court, often brazenly, represents a bold departure from artists who faced similar hurdles in the past. The Cariou suit broadens the applicability of fair use to situations where even the artist creating the work does not intend to make a work transformative, but succeeds in doing so anyway. It remains to be seen whether Prince’s most recent legal dispute will end in his favor (early signs point to trouble), but one thing is for sure: Fair use and the legal landscape in which it is invoked will continue to develop in concert with the progression of contemporary art.