Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Just... share your crayons, folks.
This whole thing is over one guy getting a copyright for Vantablack. The other artist is making his own special types of paints which change color based on temperature (called Shift and Phase), and has allowed the free use of them by anyone EXCEPT the asshole who won't let anyone else use Vantablack.
Really it's one guy being a dick, and another guy making fun of him for it.
Rivalries in the art world are nothing new. The Blue Boy is one famous instance of this, where one artist claimed that it was impossible to use blue as the focal color of a piece and succeed in creating art. The artist behind The Blue Boy aimed to prove him wrong. These two artists had been rivals for a long time, and continued to be. This particular example is from all the way back in the late 1700s. Artists have been feuding over colors for centuries!
Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Just... share your crayons, folks.
This whole thing is over one guy getting a copyright for Vantablack. The other artist is making his own special types of paints which change color based on temperature (called Shift and Phase), and has allowed the free use of them by anyone EXCEPT the asshole who won't let anyone else use Vantablack.
Really it's one guy being a dick, and another guy making fun of him for it.
Rivalries in the art world are nothing new. The Blue Boy is one famous instance of this, where one artist claimed that it was impossible to use blue as the focal color of a piece and succeed in creating art. The artist behind The Blue Boy aimed to prove him wrong. These two artists had been rivals for a long time, and continued to be. This particular example is from all the way back in the late 1700s. Artists have been feuding over colors for centuries!
Interesting. I guess nothing's safe from the argumentative headbutting between two people in general. hahaha
Maybe as an artist, I've already gone rogue... but that doesn't mean I'd be any different than anyone else. lol One day, someone's gonna say "You can't use this color to do this, you're doing it all wrong" and thus the artist confrontations continue, since I personally don't think art should be always be taken so objectively(what do use, how to do it, etc), but I can't deny that people will take exception to anything anyone does no matter what it is.
Comments
Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Just... share your crayons, folks.
Geez, man. Seriously?
Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Just... share your crayons, folks.
This whole thing is over one guy getting a copyright for Vantablack. The other artist is making his own special types of paints which change color based on temperature (called Shift and Phase), and has allowed the free use of them by anyone EXCEPT the asshole who won't let anyone else use Vantablack.
Really it's one guy being a dick, and another guy making fun of him for it.
Rivalries in the art world are nothing new. The Blue Boy is one famous instance of this, where one artist claimed that it was impossible to use blue as the focal color of a piece and succeed in creating art. The artist behind The Blue Boy aimed to prove him wrong. These two artists had been rivals for a long time, and continued to be. This particular example is from all the way back in the late 1700s. Artists have been feuding over colors for centuries!
Geez, man. Seriously?
Why all the bureaucracy over stupid colors? I'm an artist myself, but if Crayola finds out I've used their crayons and tried to sue me for using said colors in a project, that's when I will go rogue as an artist. lol
Art is an open form: it's subjective, can be use as an expression or an outlet... but to put a price on something or claim ownership of the media instead of the idea... is just wrong imo. It's like claiming the act of breathing or something. I don't have a proper analogy to explain, but it's just weird.
Just... share your crayons, folks.
This whole thing is over one guy getting a copyright for Vantablack. The other artist is making his own special types of paints which change color based on temperature (called Shift and Phase), and has allowed the free use of them by anyone EXCEPT the asshole who won't let anyone else use Vantablack.
Really it's one guy being a dick, and another guy making fun of him for it.
Rivalries in the art world are nothing new. The Blue Boy is one famous instance of this, where one artist claimed that it was impossible to use blue as the focal color of a piece and succeed in creating art. The artist behind The Blue Boy aimed to prove him wrong. These two artists had been rivals for a long time, and continued to be. This particular example is from all the way back in the late 1700s. Artists have been feuding over colors for centuries!
Interesting. I guess nothing's safe from the argumentative headbutting between two people in general. hahaha
Maybe as an artist, I've already gone rogue... but that doesn't mean I'd be any different than anyone else. lol One day, someone's gonna say "You can't use this color to do this, you're doing it all wrong" and thus the artist confrontations continue, since I personally don't think art should be always be taken so objectively(what do use, how to do it, etc), but I can't deny that people will take exception to anything anyone does no matter what it is.