Irish Artist Turns Google Maps Screen Grabs Into Pricey Art 65
jackandtoby writes "Rappers sample prior works to turn out new tunes. This artist snatches satellite imagery of environmentally savaged sites from Google Maps to create gorgeous imagery reminiscent of Persian carpets. From the article: 'Using centuries-old patterns from Persian rug makers, with a nod to Afghan weavers who use tapestry to record vivid pictorial histories, this artist uses digital photography to create fabric that plays with fact and fiction, surveillance and invisibility. Thomas Smith reproduces classic motifs with Photoshop, at a level of detail one can only really experience in person, or (aptly for his medium) through point-and-click enlargement on his website.'"
Nice looking but... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like looking at Google maps through a kaleidoscope.
I don't get the big deal (Score:2, Insightful)
He just mirrors a screenshot horizontally then vertically. It takes a minute to do. Why are people going "oooh!" over this?
modern art (Score:2, Insightful)
This is really nothing special. He takes a city, flips it once or twice in photoshop and calls it art?
I am always amazed when walking through art museums how artists of the past centuries created such amazing work - the detail, the grandeur. I especially enjoyed walking through Rome; Such marvelous sculptures chiseled with rudimentary tools. Then one happens upon the "modern artists" of today. They were too fucking lazy to take more than a few whacks and call it art. Same goes for the paintings - modern artists really know how to capture the laziness of the 21st century, this guy included.
Re:Can't do that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you're trolling but...
1) I use google maps all the time and never once have I agreed to a terms of service. I've never even seen any such terms, nor been asked to agree to them.
Doesn't matter, it's copyrighted (not the subject of the photo, but the photograph of it - that's how nature photography is copyrighted). Google's terms of service grants you right beyond copyright law, if you don't accept them you don't have them - like the GPL.
2) You can make whatever you want from copyrighted works, the law only concerns itself when you try to commercially re-distribute the work.
Nope:
the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies (...)
And finally:
3) A derivative work, especially one for aritsitic purposes, is expressedly permitted under copyright law. Even a derivative work for profit!
Nothing is "expressedly permitted" as fair use, the factors will merely be taken into consideration and one is "the purpose and character of the use", where being transformative means it's more likely to be legal, merely derivative less. Also being for profit makes it less likely.
That's three for three with total drivel, well done.