<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: George Clooney&#8217;s Face Deemed Extraneous</title> <atom:link href="http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/</link> <description>New York art news and reviews.</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator> <item><title>By: R</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-135711</link> <dc:creator>R</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:33:28 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-135711</guid> <description>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#039;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#039;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#8217;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#8217;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: R</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315214</link> <dc:creator>R</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:33:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315214</guid> <description>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#039;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#039;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#8217;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#8217;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: R</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315215</link> <dc:creator>R</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:33:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315215</guid> <description>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#039;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#039;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is so misguided about it? If I walked into Danziger&#8217;s gallery and started taking photographs of the photographs for collages and then made a huge profit off of them I&#8217;m sure Danziger and the people represented by him would want their cut. Would you feel differently if it was not the AP? What do you think of the lawsuit against Richard Prince?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Caught My Eye</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-132754</link> <dc:creator>Caught My Eye</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:04:10 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-132754</guid> <description>[...] Clooney didn&#8217;t make the cut for Fairey&#8217;s iconic Obama poster&#8230;poor George. {via ArtFagCity} (tags: design [...]</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Clooney didn&#8217;t make the cut for Fairey&#8217;s iconic Obama poster&#8230;poor George. {via ArtFagCity} (tags: design [...]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: BORIStheARTIST</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-132312</link> <dc:creator>BORIStheARTIST</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:13:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-132312</guid> <description>Didn&#039;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: BORIStheARTIST</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315212</link> <dc:creator>BORIStheARTIST</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315212</guid> <description>Didn&#039;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: BORIStheARTIST</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315213</link> <dc:creator>BORIStheARTIST</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:13:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315213</guid> <description>Didn&#039;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Didn&#8217;t Warhol do the exact same thing with his paintings??  or is it different because of that copyright law in 1970?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: greg.org</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-132297</link> <dc:creator>greg.org</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-132297</guid> <description>&quot;poor taste&quot;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.Even from Finch&#039;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#039;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#039;s whose images are for sale in the show.Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &quot;solved&quot; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#039;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#039;d Garcia&#039;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#039;s wife about his process.http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.htmlDanziger&#039;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#039;s misguided lawsuit.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;poor taste&#8221;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.</p><p>Even from Finch&#8217;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#8217;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#8217;s whose images are for sale in the show.</p><p>Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &#8220;solved&#8221; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#8217;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#8217;d Garcia&#8217;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#8217;s wife about his process.</p><p><a href="http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html" rel="nofollow">http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html</a></p><p>Danziger&#8217;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#8217;s misguided lawsuit.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: greg.org</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315210</link> <dc:creator>greg.org</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315210</guid> <description>&quot;poor taste&quot;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.Even from Finch&#039;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#039;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#039;s whose images are for sale in the show.Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &quot;solved&quot; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#039;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#039;d Garcia&#039;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#039;s wife about his process.http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.htmlDanziger&#039;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#039;s misguided lawsuit.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;poor taste&#8221;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.</p><p>Even from Finch&#8217;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#8217;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#8217;s whose images are for sale in the show.</p><p>Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &#8220;solved&#8221; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#8217;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#8217;d Garcia&#8217;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#8217;s wife about his process.</p><p><a href="http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html" rel="nofollow">http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html</a></p><p>Danziger&#8217;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#8217;s misguided lawsuit.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: greg.org</title><link>http://www.artfagcity.com/2009/02/11/george-clooneys-face-deemed-extraneous/comment-page-1/#comment-315211</link> <dc:creator>greg.org</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:10:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=4988#comment-315211</guid> <description>&quot;poor taste&quot;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.Even from Finch&#039;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#039;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#039;s whose images are for sale in the show.Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &quot;solved&quot; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#039;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#039;d Garcia&#039;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#039;s wife about his process.http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.htmlDanziger&#039;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#039;s misguided lawsuit.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;poor taste&#8221;? In a Charlie Finch column? perish the thought.</p><p>Even from Finch&#8217;s dubious account, though, James is making it clear he&#8217;s talking about Manny Garcia, the AP photographer, making money, since that&#8217;s whose images are for sale in the show.</p><p>Danziger posted several times on his blog about doggedly tracking down the photo Fairey used as a source, and he &#8220;solved&#8221; the mystery a couple of times, crediting first one Reuters photographer, then another after discovering that the photo had been miscredited.  After that perfect match [sic] to Fairey&#8217;s poster, Phila. Enquirer blogger Tom Kralich ID&#8217;d Garcia&#8217;s photo as the actual source, which Danziger confirmed only after quizzing Fairey&#8217;s wife about his process.</p><p><a href="http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html" rel="nofollow">http://pictureyear.blogspot.com/2009/01/mystery-solved-again.html</a></p><p>Danziger&#8217;s goal was to give proper credit to the photographer for an important image, and then let that photographer benefit from his/her contribution. The entire process, though, including the emergence of multiple, virtually identical photos of Obama, any one of which could be the source, should undermine the AP&#8217;s misguided lawsuit.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: static.artfagcity.com.s3.amazonaws.com

Served from: www.artfagcity.com @ 2012-02-13 03:06:52 -->
