Sound & Space: Setting & Space
On the Rights of the Molotov Man
This is one of the first times I have read an article where two sides of a discussion are genuinely put side by side. I have read written dialogues between academics disagreeing, but it's usually in the form of publishing separately. I appreciated the way this article was framed; the two ends were so well put that I found myself agreeing in some ways with both. Do I think that one person can own imagery into eternity... no. That's not how things have worked historically. An image can become iconic or a motif and have an afterlife which outlasts the artist. But, I don't think that's what Meiselas had in mind anyway. Meiselas's methodology is more aligned with a historian's. Context is the most important thing for historians, archaeologists, and anthropologists. Garnett recreates the image not only without providing some sort of historical background, but the image itself is incomplete. Honestly, I feel like Garnett's purpose would still have been achieved if she had initially made that information available. This is really just a big question of what is ethical and moral. People have a right to their artistic vision, but before executing it, you have an ethical responsibility to consider the intention and effect of your work. It's not really a question of can you, but should you?