|
Net-Busking, Shoes, Sanctimony, Other Hypocrisies & Hope In the most recent update of the site I have opened my door to receive donations, or as I prefer to think of it, busking the internet or net-busking. For those who are not familiar with the term busking, it's when an artist, musician or performer plays their song or performs their act on the street in hopes that passers by will spare some change in appreciation. And since the street I live on (being far removed from a city) is rather quiet most of the time, I thought I would hang my hat out on Cyber Street. I have written a full explanation of my intentions Donations and Net-Busking Statement but to sum it up here, my images are free for personal download and those who do so are free to donate or not. No solicitation or demands, just opening a door of possibility. And this brings me to a pothole I ran into when I worked on my Net-Busking statement. From the perspective of an artist who works with a high sense of integrity in keeping the art pure and free of commercial concern, I saw the donation option as a means to keep it that way. I saw it as not unlike the Buddhist monk who goes out with bowl in hand begging for food so he can keep doing the spiritual work. But not all people are inclined to see things in the way they are presented. In fact, most people see things through a specific shade of who they think they are. That is to say, people generally judge others through their own unconsciously held failings. The adage of "judge not lest you be judged" moves in a tighter cycle than most can see to be true. I don't know if this ever happens to you, but most times when someone lays a trip on me the faults they see are usually their own. Here's an example of this uniquely human phenomenon. When I used to (it's nice to finally say that, "used to") listen to George W talk about terrorists, in my mind I would play a little game and hear what he was saying as not about terrorists but about himself. Strange thing was, whenever I did this what he said usually fit his personal profile to a t.  ~ Speaking of George, I haven't taken the opportunity to bid a fond farewell in writing yet, and like the comedians I will miss him as a talking point. It's another oddity of life and how negatives can inspire positives. Who knows if Obama would have emerged if George and the boys hadn't set, or to put it accurately, destroyed the stage beforehand? So being that this journal began out of a need to say something about America picking a "winner", not once but twice, through the second coming of George W. Bush, I'd best say adieu properly. To semi-quote Dr. Nick of the Simpsons, "The most rewarding part was..." when the shoes flew. A fitting end and the only disappointing part was... that he seemed to be a seasoned dodge ball player. That must come with years of practice. Joking aside, there are just not enough shoes in the world to be justifiably thrown at his and his cohorts heads. My thought was, when that Iraqi reporter showed the respect George deserved, W should have all the shoes of every dead Iraqi thrown at his head. But he won't, and if the world wasn't just happy to hear the last of him, I suppose he'll slink off into the pit with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the sanctimonious snakes. But that's giving snakes a bad name. Bye bye George. I say good-bye to George but this Cheney guy, like Palin, just won't go back from whence he came. This brings to mind one other moment of recent history which lightened my mood. Seeing Cheney in a wheelchair at the inauguration was priceless. A fitting end, and like Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show, an end which if scripted would not have been as poignant or comical.  So why is Dr. Strangelove still talking? Why as the world just wants to move on does Dick get yet another opportunity to spread his dark cloak upon a sliver of hope? Why are these words given any relevance whatsoever through the media? 'Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” ...' I don't know if Dick considers himself a good Christian, but the ability to discount certain tenets of his religion does fall in line with his other moral transgressions. If we follow his justifications for so called "enhanced interrogation techniques", then perhaps he should be water boarded into telling the truth to his own people. What's the expression? "Live by the sword. Die by the sword"? But of course this will never happen because cloaked in "executive privilege" he will most likely never be called to testify or ever be held accountable for crimes against humanity. ~ Now where was I before I went into my politically inspired judgmental rant? Oh yeah, talking about how judgments generally say more about the one making them than the ones who are on the receiving end. So shoot, throw a shoe or water board me. I, like that reporter, stand by my opinion and judgment on these counts. Moving on... in searching the internet for pictures to help illustrate my statement regarding donations, I ran into one of these judgments born of hypocrisy. What I wanted was to include an image of a Buddhist monk with a begging bowl. Through Google's image search I found one of a group of monks walking down a road. I hadn't thought of it, but when my wife (who proofs these rants) said I should perhaps ask permission to use the image, that's what I did. Here is the email I sent to the photographer. ~ Hi Photographer's Name My name is Petrus Boots and I am an artist living in Canada. I've been at it for 30 years or more and of late have decided to add a donation option to my site. Feeling the need to explain my decision to do this I searched for images of monks with begging bowls and came upon your image. Attached is the page which I wish to use your image on. I don't think the images I wish to use are visible through the attachment but you can get an idea of what I am trying to express with the help of your image. Is it okay if I do this? I will follow whatever stipulations you request. Thank you and nice work by the way. Petrus ~ Here is the return email: Hi Petrus, I'm pleased that you like my work. If you want to link to my website on your links page, www.globalviewphoto.com that would be fine. I don't think the photo of a begging bowl procession should be used on a page where an artist is soliciting donations for himself. This just hits me as wrong. The monks have taken vows of poverty and are asking for food as sustenance as a spiritual practice. People give them the food as a sign of respect. So no, I don't want my image used on a page that is soliciting donations. It isn't respectful to the monks or to Buddhism. Sorry. Regards, ~ In reply I wrote, "Sorry you feel that way but I will respect your wishes". I was disappointed and thought I could let it go but like often happens through rejection, her words caused me to question my initial motives. Knowing that they were not holy solicitous, phrases within the email began to gnaw at me. Besides, "artist is soliciting donations for himself", the one that really crawled under my skin was, "It isn't respectful to the monks or to Buddhism." In my attempt to do the right thing by asking permission to use the image I was chastised for selfishly motivated solicitation. And to top it off I was accused of disrespecting one of the only religions in this world that I have any respect for at all. Now I don't subscribe to any organized religion for my spiritual sustenance, but if I was forced to choose one I would consider myself a Buddhist. Being a creator of images, I understand the need to protect your work against misuse. But if she was truly concerned with Buddhist traditions she could have rejected my request in a more Buddhist way. A simple no would have sufficed. It's one thing to deny permission to use an image but quite another to use the request as an opportunity to judge another on his sense of respect. I hold the highest respect for Buddhism and the monks who practice the art. I suppose I could have shared my grievances with her directly, but I know where that would have ended, with more indictments of my character and intent. Knowing that my intention regarding donations is simply an attempt to keep the dream alive and the art pure, it made me question the true origins of these extraneous rebukes. And this brings me back to how people generally judge others through their own unconsciously held failings. Perhaps her sanctimonious holier-than-thou assumptions originated out of her own sense of buried guilt. When your work revolves around images of people, who truly owns the copyright to their being and soul's projection? And who should profit from their existence? It made me wonder if she shares her royalties with the poor people (vow of chosen poverty or not) or solicits solely for personal gain and profit? I am not knocking on doors in solicitation. I'm only offering what I have to give and opening a door of exchange in hope. My art, like monks in meditation, is "a spiritual practice". Having held this spiritually artistic perspective for 30 years of financial struggle and strife, I didn't see my appeal for donations as any different than a monk and his begging bowl. Besides I'm not hiding my intentions as far as busking the internet and shared my purpose for doing so in the Donations and Net-Busking Statement which I sent along with the request for permission. Either she didn't read it, or in our cynical age of get what you can and fuck the rest, she just didn't believe what I wrote... so be it.  As it turned out, I didn't really need the picture or her complementary veiled pious criticisms. There are others on the internet who don't hold as tight to their fear of irrelevance.* But I do find it strange and ironic how in her denial she made herself (at least in my world) irrelevant. This altercation also brought to mind another short sighted human quandary which has troubled my mind lately. In a world of shit seemingly beyond redemption or repair, why is it that those whom one would assume are on the same team, continue to trip each other up in self-righteous condemnation? For example: it would seem in Obama's attempts to work with his fellow "public servants", this human condition is becoming all apparent. But while I'm on this copyright and permission tangent, I came across a related story ( AP sues Shepard Fairey ) when I was searching for the picture of Cheney in his wheelchair. It's about Shepard Fairey, the artist who designed the Hope image of Obama. It seems that AP has decided to sue for copyright because they own the original photo he used to create his image. I guess he should have asked, but then again if he had, that now famous image would most likely not exist. I ran into a similar situation when I created Harmonious Convergence. There are a host of famous people in that drawing and at the time I thought that I may need their permission to reproduce the image. What I didn't take into consideration were the photographers who took the pictures I used to create it. Nevertheless... I find it strange that the photographer holds more rights than the person portrayed. This seems to hold true even when the one portrayed is the President. Go figure.  In regard to Harmonious Convergence, at the time I was under the assumption that it was the subject who might object, so I searched out addresses and wrote to whomever I could find. Slowly, return letters began to arrive. The ones from Universal and Playboy regarding Spielberg, E.T. and Dorothy Stratten were disheartening to say the least. And then I received one posted from Bangor, Maine and Stephen King wrote that he had no problem with it and more than that, he wished me well with my painting. But the best one that slid it's way into my mail slot was from Kurt Vonnegut. Here's what Mr. Vonnegut wrote: ~ Dear Peter** Boots To save you a lot of postage and worry, if it's not too late: it is perfectly legal to use my or anybody's likeness in a picture without permission. Technically, you aren't supposed to make exact copies of copyrighted portraits of real people, which I guess you have done. But I never heard of a portaitist's giving a damn if something of his is used in a picture such as yours. So just go ahead. Yours
truly, ~ I followed Kurt Vonnegut's advice and produced prints of my drawing. In the case of Mr. Fairey and AP, I guess Mr. Vonnegut's advice to me does not apply. And yet... he didn't make an exact copy, did he? Legal this, legal that, where is it all going to lead us? I, like most artists, don't want others to disrespect my gifts and profit from my work, but there has to be some leeway. The painting I am presently working on still has quite a way to go, but I have another in mind already. Like Harmonious, it will consist of a selection of personalities and individuals whom I admire. How else will I be able to produce it without the aid of available images? Through inclusion, I feel that I am honoring the people I choose to portray in the most respectful way I know how, by painting them. As it is with Harmonious, my new painting will consist of numerous individuals, and seeing how these permission requests generally go, if I try to go through the legal process this planned painting will never see the light of day. So when the time comes I will most likely take my chances. If a legal suit manifests, as a consequence it might bring with it some much needed recognition for what I do. ~ I have one last beef to broil in this journal entry. It's in regard to the term "The One", which some people like to attach to Obama in sarcastic judgment of those who finally see some hope for the future. Why? What is there to gain from these kinds of cynical innuendos? Perhaps statements like, "the second coming" and "bring out the Kool-Aid***" harkens back to that old judge not lest you be judged deal. For only someone who considers themselves superior and above others could make those blatant assertions. It's a tight circle we weave through preordained verdicts cast, and as I have said they say more about those who cast them than to those they wish to discredit. So what was it, an estimated 1.5 million at Barack Obama's inauguration? I suppose if one is inclined to look at it from a cultist perspective, a gathering of that magnitude for a Presidential inauguration could generate some fear. Add to that the fact that those who attended were in a euphoric mood, and one with predetermined assumptions will undoubtedly view it as a Moonies**** convention. Perception generates and determines what we see. For the horticulturist a flower is a flower, but for one who lives purely in their sexual identity, all sorts of sexual organs will predominate the image of a flower. I know that I am taking a leap of faith here, but just maybe this flower is just what it is, a symbol of hope. I'm not here to convince anyone and people choose to see what they see. Considering that during the Bush inaugurations (it's sad that word is plural) protesters needed to be cordoned off and a walk down the street was not a good idea for George, this latest changing of the guard was a welcome sight to see. All those people and not one arrest? Damn. That has to stand for something. Just the fact that 1.5 million happy people gathered together in peace at a power point upon our planet affected our world in a positive way. What brought them there is inconsequential... and something tells me Obama would agree. Then again... perhaps those who see fit to judge, just miss George and the boys, because Barack Obama doesn't seem to fit the preconceived and widely accepted cynical view of leadership. ~ "Power
to the People † John Lennon ~ *Amendment: February 8, 2009. † When I initially published this entry I had assumed this statement to be true. Since: I have received yet another rejection for a picture request. It was a picture of an Australian busker with a flower and sign professing, "One Planet, One People". This rejection was especially disappointing and has led me to no longer ask for the use of other's images. I guess I fell prey to the, "judge not lest you be..." deal. Having read some of this busker's lyrics, I assumed we were on the same page but my prejudgment would seem to have been in error. If we as "one" people are going to survive the shit storm which seems to be approaching, we might do well to let go a little and help each other out, rather then hold on ever tighter to our illusions of self and who we think we are. Just my opinion. And now Shepard Fairey has been arrested, the CNN ticker said, "Obama 'hope' artist arrested in Boston." Nice string of words. In contradiction, this image just seems to keep on giving. When hope has been arrested, how are we to hope at all? ** At that time I still used Peter and had not returned to using my christened name as it appears on my birth certificate. Now in the internet age I am thankful that I chose to revert to using Petrus. If you care to see why, Google Peter Boots and you will find out. *** Reference to cult leader Jim Jones of Jonestown infamy, who convinced his followers to commit suicide through the use of poisoned Kool-Aid. **** Moonies or The Unification Church. Many consider this religious group to be a cult. Disclaimer: Use of images on this page are meant to illustrate and enhance a personal point of view and in no way indicates or infers the individuals depicted or the photographer's or artist's support of any opinion or statements expressed by the author. I suppose that goes without saying as far as Dick is concerned. ~ Note: To reach other entries of the past just use the Index on the right by choosing the date, a flyout title will also appear to help in your inquiry. Or click here for Page 10 of the Journal. ~ |
|
In depth clarification for busking the internet: Donations and Net-busking Statement. 
Except for individual private use, all rights reserved Copyright © 2010 by Petrus H. Boots
|