What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual Property, or IP, is something that many people have very little or no idea what it means, as a creative it is something very important to be aware of to protect your work. IP is the umbrella term given to copyright, trademarks, patents and design rights, categories in which they have similarities in their nature and legal protection. The exclusive rights given to owners of IP means that no one else has claim to their ideas or work and can also benefit them financially. Unlike with the other categories, in most cases copyright does not need to be registered; it is automatically given to the ‘author’ of the work, the author being the person who created the protected work. Copyright literally means ‘the right to control copying’; the ‘author’ can manage the rights to copy, distribute and adapt the work up until it enters the public domain, which in most countries is the lifetime of the ‘author’ plus 70 years. Often the employer owns the copyright of work created by employees, however, this will be stated in a contract between the two. Copyright owners can license, permanently transfer or assign their exclusive rights to others; unauthorized use of works covered by copyright law is called copyright infringement or violation and is illegal.

A few common instances where IP may have an effect on you are as follows:

Something which relates to a lot of us nowadays is using a website in aid of promotion, to protect original work the universal copyright symbol © together with the owners name and date should be contained on the site. However, if you have contracted someone to build your site they will retain the copyright unless otherwise stated. If you are setting up a new business there are certain protocols you should follow, for example, if you talk to anyone, including investors or a partner, about anything to do with a new product ensure that they sign a Non-Disclosure agreement beforehand so that no one else can steal the idea or disclose the information to others. To protect it from others using it, your business name and brand should be registered as a trademark. If you are a designer of sort and believe you have invented something new you can check whether your idea is already in existence. If it happens that your product is unique in its appearance it is advised to apply for design registration to protect such things; if it is the methods and processes that make things work that are new it should be patented. It is a good idea to be familiar with these procedures, as you could end up losing all rights to something that you in fact created.

For more information visit: www.ipo.gov.uk

'Street' Art?

There is a lot of controversy surrounding art nowadays, as more frequently we are seeing exhibitions in galleries containing artwork that many do not consider to be ‘art’. For instance, the street artist Banksy has recently opened an exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London; the difference between supposed exhibition pieces and street art being that a lot of art is made to last and to be enjoyed but street art has a short life span, as it is illegal. For many street artists, the movement started out as a joke but talented artists with strong political views got involved. Banksy's work embraces satirical social and political issues, taking the form of murals, sculpture and installation.

As with other street artists, Banksy would have to leave the site quickly so as to not get caught. Through filming ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’ (2010) he was able to have someone return with a camera and ask the public’s opinion on his art, a lot of the feedback was positive. In Banksy’s first exhibition Barely Legal in LA (2006), he forced street art into the spotlight by putting a camouflaged elephant into his exhibition and collectors rushed to get in on it. Through perceived power, gained by the power of the repetition building up hype around it, street art has made its way into collections worldwide; it is socially a fascinating thing to observe what people buy into.

This is not the first time we have seen artists push at the ‘boundaries’ that seem to be in place within art; Marcel Duchamp being notorious for purchasing everyday objects, sometimes combining them into unique constructions, and announcing them as art that became to be known as the ready-mades. Ready-made artists took items that were not what would be called traditional exhibition pieces and made them so, even though they had not created them or in other cases just made direct copies of them. It is the idea of recycling everyday objects, taking them out of their original context and introducing them to a new environment, that intrigued Duchamp and so many other artists after him; the items are looked at with a different perspective so given a new meaning. This has been the cause of many disagreements between critics for years, questioning whether it can be classed as art or not.

The perceived connotations of a piece of artwork can change so it makes a difference if it is placed into another context. Artwork can be bought to a different audience so it can be seen in a new light, whereas it may have been lost if this had not happened. This has always been the case but it takes some time for people to adjust to new ideas and to look with an open mind at things that do not lie within their comfort zone. People expect artists to abide by the rules, but essentially by calling yourself an artist surely there aren’t any rules to break.

'Fountain', Duchamp, 1913

'One Nation Under CCTV', Banksy, 2008

Banksy's exhibition at the Andipa Gallery, London is open from 9th June - 9th July 2011: www.andipa.com/Exhibitions/Banksy-War-Boutique.php

For a firsthand insight into the world of street art I would thoroughly recommend watching ‘Exit Through The Gift Shop’: www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/

Compassionate Dorset, the local supporter group for the leading farm animal welfare charity Compassion in World Farming, have teamed up with South West Artwork and Meetdraw to look for talented designers and artists to design more farm animal themed t-shirts to add to our online t-shirt shop. We are hoping to select at least 4 winning designs and 100% profits from all online sales (that's at least £3 - £5 for every product sold) will be donated to the charity.

Our #1 mission is to end factory farming and promote compassionate living, and we'd like more creatives to join the herd...

The brief is simple - design a supercool, funky or beautiful and attractive t-shirt on the theme of FARM ANIMALS.

Sheep, Pigs, Cows, Goats, Chickens, Ducks - even Game Birds and Fish are often farmed!
Or you can do a whole farmyard or something more abstract or text based on the idea of ending factory farming.

Take a look at our current online shop with designs by Illustrator Stu Jones on: http://compassionatedorset.spreadshirt.co.uk
(the current bestseller is our 'Highland Cow').

You can enter as many designs as you like.

The winners will be announced as we launch the new t-shirt designs on our online shop for June 1st - just in time for Summer!

All designers will retain copyright and be credited on the relevant product pages in our online shop and on our winner's page here on our main website, and will have the credibility of having designed apparel for the leading farm animal welfare charityCompassion in World Farming. Compassionate Dorset t-shirts are also stocked in the new What Alice Found vintage art and fashion shop in Boscombe, Dorset by South West Artwork.

The deadline to send your designs is on or by Monday 16th May 2011.

The judging panel will be:

* Anna Celeste Watson - Founder and Web Designer at Compassionate Dorset
* Stu Jones - Resident Illustrator at Compassionate Dorset
* Laura Mulhern - Co-Founder of South West Artwork
* Paul Seys - Board Member of Meetdraw and Head of User Experience at Redweb

EMAIL YOUR ARTWORK TO: info@compassionatedorset.co.uk on or before Monday 16th May 2011.

Artwork must be sent ready to upload to the online shop, to the following specifications:

* Save vector graphics as .ai (up to version CS2)
* Save pixel graphics as .jpg, .bmp, .gif or .png (png is preferred)
* Size of pixel graphics: max 10 MB and at least 300dpi
* All designs must be able to sit on a transparent background to be printed on any colour
(Please Note: some products such as hoodies and organic options are only currently available in white)

If the file is over 4MB please send it via a file sharing client - we recommend www.yousendit.com.
We'll confirm receipt of all entries received.

Winning designs will be printed on t-shirts by Spreadshirt using their print-on-demand service (they keep the rest of the money from sales for this service and we donate all our commission to Compassion in World Farming).

There are 3 main printing techniques available; Flex, Flock or Digital.

Please Note: Due to printing costs we would prefer Digital (full colour) or Flex 1 colour (otherwise we'll get less commission to donate to charity or will have to price higher). If you wish to send two different versions to sit on either a black/dark/colour t-shirt and also work on a white t-shirt please do so.

* Digital - full colour (no limits on number of colours)
* Flex - up to 3 colours max
* Special Flex - 1 colour max
* Flock - up to 3 colours max

Take a look at Spreadshirt's Printing Techniques for further guidance: www.spreadshirt.co.uk/help-C1328/categoryId/9.

We look forward to choosing our winners on June 1st!

The Age Old Question 'But is it Art?'

Why is the definition of art still such a debate?

I refer to the recent news about the European Commission not recognising light works created by Dan Flavin and Bill Viola as 'art'.

That basically means the galleries will have to pay full VAT and customs dues on the 'light fittings'.

A shrewd loophole of gaining some revenue by arguing point that is clearly ridiculous maybe?

Article in the Art Newspaper below:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Flavin+and+Viola+light+works+ruled+not+art/22069

Moving on from the monetary aspect here, I love the fact that the term 'art' still cannot be defined.

Ok, yes granted, some contemporary 'art' can be frustrating for some people to see a stack of bricks and asked to look at it as a piece of art when for them an oil painting is the preferred more obvious choice.

But therein lies the beauty of contemporary art surely. The very raising of the question, opens up the debate for people to look at things in a different way, a new inspired way that they would otherwise look over.

Spotting a concept, beauty, an idealism, a political comment all from one object or installation and presenting it back out to the public gaze has got to be a craft in itself surely?

Without art, or indeed to be more specific creating an image, sculpture or film to briefly make you stop look listen, feel, and/or react to life would be pretty boring.

We aren't just practical beings. We have an imagination, we dream, we aspire to a better future. And so we use art as a way of expressing that.

Not everyone will like it, and glad to hear it. It only opens the debate further, which can only be a good thing.

I think there is some pieces out there that seem to be a pretentious attempt to intentionally alienate the audience or art viewer and appreciator. It can become therefore elitist. And really then what's the point. If you're expressing something, why would you just want the only person to understand and appreciate it to be you??

Anyway, those light fittings were intended as a piece of art by the creator so surely its not up to the EC to decide whether they think should be deemed 'art' if its turned off or on.........

It's a debate we'll all have for centuries to come I imagine. And its with great thanks to the EC! They have highlighted a lovely piece of 'art' to a wider audience to enthuse, discuss and enjoy! Not their initial intention I'm sure :)

SEX, FREE BEER & WINE and other things...

SEX, yes it gets your attention doesn't it? Well it does me anyway!

That and free beer or chocolate...

Its all about marketing really isn't it? This 'art' thing I mean. So either you go and see a wonderful intricate oil painting, or a cow cut in half. I think I'll see the cow thanks.

Why is that? We do we love seeing shocking art over the discipline of structured work? Not saying a cow sawn in half is any less structured but it begs the question, was it made to shock and to draw attention first then the viewer can appreciate the artistry that went into it second?

Most viewed creativity always has a pull, a hook to tempt you in. A big name, or a shocking truth whether it be art, film, music. Rather like whoever shouts the loudest at a market stall seems to bring the most profit home I suppose.

But are these marketing ploys a detriment to the work produced? I have seen plenty of exhibitions of artists heralded as the next best thing and came away feeling less than inspired, or the monumental film epic that has every star in Hollywood cast but its actually just coming up to a B-movie standard.

Then you see a piece of art by a 'no-one' and its frickin awesome, or you hear a piece of music that's so good you stay in the car until its finished just to hear the artists name (someone who, it turns out you've never heard of and you vow to remember it by the time you get onto itunes later that day).

I suppose really what I'm trying to say is do we need the marketing ploys? Will people not just like what they like without having it be dictated to them that this is what they like!

Or maybe we do? I don't tend to go out of my way to see something unless it is publicised a lot, it still works on me I'm a sucker.... 'Oh everyone seems to be talking about this, it MUST be good' so I go and watch/listen/interact with it. Not always glad I did either.

But I think for the next month I will try to see the not-so-well publicised stuff, I'll look a bit deeper and see what I can find. Maybe something better than a cow sawn in half?

Try it if you dare and tell me what you find, I'd love to hear about it (but not too much).

Should artists have assistants to make their work?

Apparently this practice is still not widely known to exist. The truth is, its been going on for centuries. Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Moore all had assistants employed to help them complete their work. I'm sure it was needed too given how much they were in demand to produce new work all the time.

Of course, my first reaction to this question posed was 'well I would if I could!' Not many artists have the luxury of actually being in a position where they can employ people to help realise their work on a massive scale.

This is limited to those established variety.

But even if they can afford to employ and even be busy enough to require them in the first instance, does it take away from the work 'they' are creating?

An article in The Guardian a number of years ago by Rose Aidin addresses this issue amongst others:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/oct/12/art

Being removed from your work such as Damien Hirst asking assistants to create his spots paintings, is he still the artist then?

The question then i suppose is "What is the 'art' here, the concept or the craft?"

The truth being if I was loaded and wanted to buy one of Hirsts spot paintings I would want to know is was actually created by him and his sweaty little hands, instead of letting his assistants do it while he marches to off to the bank.

But then I suppose its then a brand your buying. Of course I don't expect Gucci or Armani to individually sew all his clothes before trucking them over from the factories himself and selling it directly to me. Maybe then this is how we should see artwork? A label?

But surely this takes away from the uniqueness of the piece; I wouldn't want to buy or view the Mona Lisa and find that everyone on has a version painted by his assistants on every street corner.
So too, the artist should want to get his or her hands dirty no? Personally speaking, its only then you find that concepts, ideas, your craft evolves as you are there developing the piece seeing it grow. Would you get that if you had assistants? Not so sure.

Conceptual or Commercial?

So the debate over the last two weeks in the SWA house - should we be putting a commercial or a more conceptual slant into our exhibitions? Should they be exclusive? Does one override the other?

The truth being a matter of a nice balance of both seems to be the most sensible. We want to be able to showcase great contemporary work of all practices but like with anything we need the capital to do it.
Putting on an exhibition costs money, through promotion, and the curators time, as well as artists material expenses. In the ideal world we would want to be able to pay the artist for their showcasing their talent not just pay them for materials. This time next light year Rodney when we have found the right formula, which once again comes down to this debate, how much Commerical? How much Conceptual?

Of course some pieces can be both, but not all. I can only assume very few people would want a film of an ass crack suspended over a circle of short film work named Moonlighting, created by Fine Artist Ed Jones. The day we sell that to put in someones living room I promise to eat my left shoe. But the point of the piece isn't to appeal to the buying market, its appealing to the art viewer, the art appreciator. The entertainment of the piece is right there in the exhibition space, to view, enthuse and move on. Of course if someone wishes to buy it this is a bonus. An unlikely happening, but still a bonus.

This is why we need funding in the first off, before the exhibition begins to enable the exhibition to be realised fully, and to get the general public to want to come in and see it. And yes we do our exhibitions for the public, for everyone, not just the elite 'artist circles' you can get in some areas. This is the problem with contemporary art or any art for that matter, why just open the doors to a select few? Art is for everyone. Anyway I'll get off my soapbox on that matter and come back to it on a another blog post.

So back to buying, selling, buying, selling. Of course the more we sell the more we can reinvest into the SWA to enable us to put on more shows and show off the great talent we have here in the South West, dahling. But if its all pretty 2D work that people are happy to take away and put above their mantle piece then some of the magic of an art show can be lost. The exhibition is the entertainment, well thats what we believe anyway. The exhibition should be curated in such a way the space is alive with work, concepts, musings, ideas, debates, entertainment.
Getting the funding to do this however, is now minimal. We aren't big enough yet to compete with the organisations that get over £100k a year from the Arts Council, but we are keen on getting even a percentage of it if it means the artists and the general public can enjoy something a bit different. That however isn't as easy as it may sound either. Hundreds of man hours filling in proposals , funding applications to get £100 isn't that appealing I have to admit.

So we are back to selling! The scrap yard show was intentionally bereft of 'sellable' work. The space warranted a more conceptual theme, the poundbury garden centre show however has a more open element of people coming in to 'buy' something, usually some pesticide and bulbs but if there is some artwork in the space that takes their eye then we hope to sell it to them. Then we can always have the odd conceptual structure that has the viewer enthralled, entertained, but not necessarily a piece they can buy.

For now thats the way to play it, I think anyway. Of course if we sell both commercial and conceptual in one show I'll eat both my shoes. As then I'll be able to buy a new pair!

If you are around between the 14th - 30th August pop in to the Poundbury Garden Centre, see what you think of the mix.