Reason Magazine

Site Search

A Surreal Complaint

miroreason.gif
Slashdot is reporting
that the estate of painter Joan Miró and the Artists Rights Society are miffed at Google. The king of the search engines recently changed its logo, as it often does in honor of various special dates, to commemorate the birthday of the Catalan surrealist—but the ARS regards their appropriation of Miró's style as a violation of the author's "moral rights."

I'd call this intellectual property overreach under any circumstances, but it's especially ironic in that Kerry Howley and I recently stopped by the current Dada art exhibition at the National Gallery. Dada, the style from which surrealism emerged, relied heavily on cutting and pasting other artworks or commercial images to make their points—so much so that the poster for the exhibition is Duchamp's famous version of the Mona Lisa, which simply adds a goatee, moustache, and caption to DaVinci's original. Without the kind of cultural borrowing Miró's heirs now protest, the art movement from which he emerged might not have existed.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« New at Reason | Main | NORML Reactions »

Comments to "A Surreal Complaint":

Hakluyt | April 24, 2006, 4:52pm | #

The "moral rights" theory of I.P. law is a couple of hundred years old.

fyodor | April 24, 2006, 4:52pm | #

Everyone wants to close the gate behind 'em.

smacky | April 24, 2006, 4:53pm | #

Without the kind of cultural borrowing Miró's heirs now protest, the art movement from which he emerged might not have existed.

Well, obviously that invitation doesn't apply to evil, for-profit corporations. Duh.

Robert | April 24, 2006, 4:55pm | #

I always thought Google was ripping off Barney Google, with the googly, googly eyes.

Umbriel | April 24, 2006, 4:55pm | #

Seems to me that an absurdly overbroad interpretation of intellectual property law would be very much in the spirit of Dada. Miro's estate is just keepin' the faith.

arthur | April 24, 2006, 5:05pm | #

Wrong girly name. It's Joan Miro.

Sandy | April 24, 2006, 5:22pm | #

So if I make one with Joan Miró-esque lettering and then I add "Joan is Stupid" after it, it's parody, and I'm protected. But if I say "Joan is Great!" after, it's violating his moral rights.

Even though he's dead, and no amount of euros will coax new works out of him.

Guess that family better get crackin' on the procreatin' to make another master, because this attempt at surrealism was merely lame irony.

butterbarrel | April 24, 2006, 5:26pm | #

Can laws be art?

bubba | April 24, 2006, 5:40pm | #

Wait. Someone is complaining because Google posted a temporary tribute to an artist in that artist's own style? An artist that 99.9% of Google's users would otherwise have never heard of?

Seriously?

Uri ben Tzvi | April 24, 2006, 6:02pm | #

Did the Campbell soup people ever sue Andy Warhol?

Surrealist Compliment Generator | April 24, 2006, 6:06pm | #

You mutter such objects of equine delight that the mind's ability to sew slices of mordant ivory becomes tamed with visions of Tamils in Constantinople.

Hey! I like your style! | April 24, 2006, 6:12pm | #

Wheals and boils come forth as testament to your fine sense of haut couture.

Supermike | April 24, 2006, 6:24pm | #

the a-rt world is full of a-holes. Thanks to whiny "artist rightsers", here in California, you can't remove a piece of public art without the artist's permission. The rationale is that it'd be damaging to the artist's reputation. My answer is: "if you want to maintain your reputation as an artist, don't produce crappy art that will look stupid in five years"

joshua corning | April 24, 2006, 6:30pm | #

dada is cool but the surealists have always been dicks...at least that is what they taught me in collage. :)

Sandy | April 24, 2006, 6:31pm | #

BTW, Julian, excellent Photoshopping there.

Joan Miro | April 24, 2006, 6:56pm | #

You'll be hearing from my estate shortly, Senor.

just curious | April 24, 2006, 7:06pm | #

I'd call this intellectual property overreach under any circumstances, but it's especially ironic in that Kerry Howley and I recently stopped by the current Dada art exhibition at the National Gallery.

Soooo, was this a date?

Rick Barton | April 24, 2006, 7:32pm | #

ARS is being aburd. I think that their real problem is that Goog nailed Joan Miró a little too well. At least some of the surrealist artists among them probably feel insecure at the Goog rendering. I'm guessing that more realistic artists aren't so bothered. Not that there's anything wrong with surrealist art. Dali is one of my faves.

mediageek | April 24, 2006, 7:48pm | #

I saw that Google thing the other day and thought to myself "Oh, neat, Google has done a stylized logo in the style of that supremely over-rated Spanish artist who's name I can't recall at the moment."

Luis Bunuel | April 24, 2006, 10:24pm | #

Those Google bastards had better not try that with me.

80sfan | April 24, 2006, 10:33pm | #

To paraphrase Ian MacKaye... they (Google) are artists, too, it's just: their art is guiding people ever more quickly to porn

Xmas | April 24, 2006, 11:57pm | #

I should do a Dada-ist version of the Mona Lisa, only I'll give her a goatse.

dagny | April 25, 2006, 10:42am | #

I should do a Dada-ist version of the Mona Lisa, only I'll give her a goatse.

If I ever heard an idea guaranteed to get posted on Boing Boing, I think that's it.

cgee | April 25, 2006, 2:05pm | #

Apparently, this sort of thing is going around, as seen in the recent story about a dispute between Barneys windowdresser and NYO columnist Simon Doonan and "contemporary artist" Jack Pierson regarding Doohan's use of "found" signage in window displays. Apparently, Pierson believes that his use of such items in his "art" entitles him to some sort of exclusivity. The irony here, of course, is that Doohan has been using discarded items, including lettering and signs, in his window displays for over 20 years, long before anyone had ever heard of Pierson.

NY Observer article

On a side note, I suppose I have to draw a distinction between the type of art created by Miro and the type of works created by so-called contemporary artists like Pierson. Essentially, it is my Potter Stewart rule - if a person with absolutely no artistic ability such as myself could faithfully recreate a work, it does not qualify as art. Miro and Lichtenstein get to stay; Duchamp and Pierson are out. Hey, it doesn't have to make any sense -- it's my rule.