Artistic expression? Infringement? Parody? Is it even art?
The Kathleen Cullen Fine Arts gallery opened an exhibit back in February (I thought some of this looked familiar, but I don't believe I made any comment on it back then; apologies if I saw something about it on one of your blogs) and lawyers for DC comics want the displayed closed. Why? Because of a selection of watercolors by Mark Chamberlain depict a series of pieces of Batman and Robin in homoerotic, nude and semi-nude poses.
A cross-section of the works can be found here, and it'll be a matter of individual interpretation as to how artistic it is. The work appears to be technically weak, attempting to draw substance from a controversial subject selection, as the work would be overlooked were it not for Chamberlain tapping into the fame of the characters in question. Indeed, the work is of sufficiently poor and exploitative quality that I've decided against using any of it in this post. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
While I'm generally not strongly in favor of iron-clad copyright and trademark protections, especially when they're tied to virtually immortal corporations where the seemingly endless renewals and extentions pervert the original intent of copyright law to allow an orderly passage from protected works into the public domain, this is one of those cases where I don't see any cultural benefit from the work.
I can't claim that I'm able to be completely objective about it because I, frankly, find the work itself objectionable. Homophobia? I don't know what that really means, it's so broadly used and is such a strange word anyway. Is it really a fear? Isn't it possible to find something simply inappropriate? Am I really afraid of dog shit on a china plate, or simply that probably shouldn't be and isn't helping anyone. Out of place in a way that doesn't serve any greater purpose? (Honestly, dog shit on a china plate is a much more evocative image, come to think of it, but I digress...)
I suppose I'm bothered by the cheap rehashing of cyclical charges of sexual rumors being made mainly by people interested only in titillation. It rehashes all of the comments about superhero costumes as being "pervert suits" be people who appear intellectually incapable of giving Freud the slip. Thoughts that a functional fashion could simply be that, tied with perhaps the vanity would likely be a part of anyone with such a bent for exhibitionism, are waved off because "pervert suits" and sexual dress-up games are so much more amusing to contemplate. Beyond that, again, I'm bothered that someone of seemingly pedestrian talent is tapping into 65 years of a character's notoriety to get some attention I don't believe the artist deserves.
Of course, here I am inadvertently helping in my miniscule way to give him the attention.
Anyway, I've done my part -- whatever that is -- and it's for you to make up your own minds.
.png)
Comments
I'm not going to see comparisons of my own talents to those of someone else in this instance - it seems irrelevant to the point - but the pieces strike me as pedestrian and noteworthy only for the buttons he's pushing with his choice of subject. There's no fresh idea involved, leaving it either as a rehash of some old, off-color jokes or an attempt to shake genetalia provocatively in the faces of the straights.
While one measure of "art" is its ability to evoke a reaction in the observer, it's not the sole measure. If it were, then profanity or flipping someone off would be art.
A lawsuit is overkill. The act of bringing out a lawsuit causes this stuff to be seen by more people than it would if ignored. I keep wanting to be sued by some corporation or government agency and boost the sales of my stuff, but no dice yet.
Maybe if I painted Rumsfeld screwing a bald eagle? Nah.... that's been done.
Grant (I can never remember how to log into this damn site)