I went to Ray at Night again (on Ray Street, San Diego, CA, 2nd Saturday each month) a week ago, not expecting (or getting) the crowds we saw the previous month. One exhibit caught our eye. As we walked in, we saw bright, colorful pictures of graphic images…

and then we went up close and realized they were photographs of murals. Hmmn. We had an artist moment and discussed whether (1) the photographer WAS the muralist (seemed reasonable to sell photos of your own murals) or (2) the photographer was paying the muralist. Or whether none of that was happening. I did a little research and came up with some interesting information. First of all, the muralist is Pose2/Mr. Maxx Moses, depending on whether he’s making a mural or painting graffiti…I’m sure if I hung around him for a while, I would know the difference, but let’s assume pictures (mural) and words (graffiti). Dictionary.com gives us a definition of graffiti as “writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place.” So maybe the illicit is the difference? I wonder where street artists like Shepard Fairey and Banksy fit into this.

Anyway, I managed to find an announcement of the show that explains that the photographer, Catherine Koch, saw Mr. Moses’ murals and called him, and told him about the photographs, and he invited her over for tacos. So to me it sounds like the muralist is aware and hopefully approves. That said, what do you think? Should some of the profits from the photos, if they are sold, go to the muralist? I know if it’s a sanctioned mural, like many of Moses’ are, then he does get paid or get materials or both. All good. Even so, if someone makes money off photographing his artwork, I still feel like he should get the equivalent of royalties.

I don’t have details of this particular arrangement, but it did make me stop for a moment. If I thought the art was good (I did…but it turns out I think the murals are good), I might want to buy it. If I couldn’t buy the mural, I might be happy with a photograph of it. Surely the photographer has framed the picture for composition and color balance, taken a good photo with appropriate lighting, printed it out in a pleasing manner, and framed it. Compensation for all that is also part of the picture. And here I am, posting pictures of the pictures of the painting. Yikes.

I’m starting to think of Koch more as a historian, a documenter of Moses’ work.

I’m actually glad that I went home and read up on the two of them. I guess I’m bringing this up because I’ve heard fussing about the Tumblr blogs showing people’s work without attribution (one of my quilts is on a Tumblr blog and I can’t figure out how to contact the person who put it on there…my name is on the art, but no link to my website) and now Pinterest is causing some issues as well with artists who don’t want to be on there. I like Pinterest because it links to where you found the original picture. I actually work pretty hard at providing links to original artists, because I think we all need the press, but there should always be a link. This is the web. It’s changing. Copyright and ownership seem to be changing with it.

So here’s Mr. Maxx Moses’ link…I’m thinking of taking his graffiti class…seriously. Might be fun.