‘Washington Post’ Endorses Plagiarism to Defend Obama
by Ben ShapiroYesterday, the White House announced that it was removing Alma Thomas’ plagiaristic piece “Watusi (Hard Edge)” from its walls. The White House announced that the painting was moved “because it didn’t fit the space right.” The Washington Post pointed out that posters at FreeRepublic.com had examined the similarity between “Watusi (Hard Edge)” and Henri Matisse’s “The Snail” (1953), ignoring the fact that Big Hollywood actually broke the story. The Washington Post covered for the White House, explaining, “Stephens’s explanation makes sense because it is inconceivable that the White House’s art experts would imagine Thomas’s painting was fraudulent or a copy … Elaborations on earlier artists’ work, even full appropriation, have been common practice in art for hundreds of years.”

Andrew Breitbart immediately emailed the author of the piece, Blake Gopnik, to point out that Big Hollywood had not been properly attributed on criticism of the piece. Here’s Andrew’s email:
“Ben Shapiro at Big Hollywood broke this story with a legitimate report. Not blog opinion. To credit Free Republic or conservative opinion sites is either bad journalism or… bad journalism. Even at Free Republic they cite Shapiro and Big Hollywood. The story was cited properly all over the Internet, why the Washington Post breach? We have been at the forefront of reporting on what the MSM won’t regarding this admin. We had the ACORN story, the NEA propaganda conference call. All hard news stories. And so is this. Shapiro is a Harvard law grad. He is hardly worthy of this kind of brush off. We’d like to see a correction as soon as possible.”
And here is Gopnik’s response:
I’m sorry, Andrew, but there WAS NO STORY OR SCANDAL HERE, at all, until the White House (seemed to have been) forced to withdraw the painting by conservative Web sites. We were well aware of the earlier comments regarding “Watusi,” but actively chose not to cover them in any way, because they were so ill-founded. Any writer with any real expertise in art would have known that Thomas’s riff on Matisse was always meant to be obviously legible as such, and was read as such from the beginning — there was never any fakery or plagiarism involved. Accusing Thomas of “plagiarism” here is precisely like accusing the Beatles of “plagiarism” for having recorded “Roll Over Beethoven” — after making the “discovery”, in 2009, that there was this other guy named Chuck Berry who’d written a song that sounded almost the same.
Yours,
Blake Gopnik
Chief Art Critic
The Washington Post
I will freely admit that I am no expert art critic. I am, however, a lawyer. And I can read. These constitute two skill sets that apparently elude Mr. Gopnik. Gopnik admits that the White House was “forced to withdraw the painting by conservative Web sites,” which is more than he did in his Washington Post piece. But at the same time, he says that everyone knows that Thomas’ piece is a “riff on Matisse.” Everyone, it seems, except the New York Times, which originally reported the Obama White House Art. In the pages of the Times, Holland Cotter, the Times’ art critic, described Thomas’ painting as “an out-and-out steal of a Matisse collage. Thomas just shifts the pieces around, cools the colors down, and adds a title that refers to a Chubby Checker song.” I guess Cotter is as uneducated as I am. (The New York Times, by the way, was just as bad as the Washington Post – in their coverage of the White House takedown, they selectively edited out Cotter’s line about “Watusi (Hard Edge)” as an “out-and-out steal of a Matisse collage” while keeping his description about Chubby Checker.)
Whatever Gopnik knows about art, his claims about the nature of artistic plagiarism demonstrate total and utter ignorance of basic copyright law. “Accusing Thomas of ‘plagiarism’ here is precisely like accusing the Beatles of ‘plagiarism’ for having recorded ‘Roll Over Beethoven’ — after making the ‘discovery,’ in 2009, that there was this other guy named Chuck Berry who’d written a song that sounded almost the same,” Gopnik patronizingly remarks in his email. Except that the Beatles, presumably, complied with U.S. copyright law, which requires that re-recordings of songs acquire what is termed a “mechanical license” — a process which calls for the re-recording artist to both notify the original artist of the song and to pay a royalty for using it. Alma hasn’t paid a dime to the Matisse estate to my knowledge. So it ain’t quite the same thing, there, Blake.
As far as visual art, slight modification won’t obviate copyright infringement claims. Just ask Shepard Fairey, the idiot artist who created the Obama Hope poster by ripping off an Associated Press photograph. AP sued Fairey under the Copyright Act, explaining that “the Infringing Works copy all the distinctive and unequivocally recognizable elements of the Obama Photo in their entire detail, retaining the heart and essence of The AP’s photo, including but not limited to its patriotic theme … the striking similarity between The AP’s copyright image … of President Obama and the poster that Fairey made based on that image … is patently obvious.”
There were strong legal grounds for the AP’s suit against Fairey – grounds which would be similarly applicable to Matisse’s work. Under 17 U.S.C. §106, for example, the owner of copyright in a work as the exclusive right to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” Under 17 U.S.C. §501, “Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner … is an infringer of the copyright.” So Gopnik’s supposed defense of plagiarism in art in the Washington Post piece as “common practice in art for hundreds of years” doesn’t make it okay.
The story of the Obama White House and “Watusi (Hard Edge)” was originally a story about the White House’s incompetent vetting process and inane taste in art. Now it has become something more: the latest and most patently obvious attempt by the mainstream media to shield a president from any criticism, however minute – and their willingness even to endorse artistic plagiarism to do it.




Subscribe via RSS
123 Comments
Is there NOTHING about this President or his administration that isn't a lie, a high-pressure pitch, a fraud, or a scandal?
Obama makes me miss George Bush.
Gopnik shares artistic knowledge and values with Michelle Obama. Only REAL folks know that the King has No Clothes. Obama = phoney, Gopnik = idiot.
Then if this is so, why is the artist of Obama hope picture apologizing and in trouble for his adaptation?
I don't know about the mechanical license, or the obligation to notify an artist that another artist is selling a performance of a song originally performed by a previous singer, but they damn sure paid the composer's royalties to Chuck Berry (via his publisher) after crediting him appropriately on the cover and label of their record in 1964. Although these seem like well-established policies to most of us they are apparently more than Mr. GOpnik can comprehend.
When it comes to modern art, I'll take dogs playing poker on crushed velvet any day.
I don't think that Obama "fits the space right" that he presently occupies in the White House either.
Perhaps he should be removed as well.
The Holland Cotter article also says : "I had one pressing question. If the offer were made, which artist from the White House list would I choose for my New York City apartment? I knew the answer: Alma W. Thomas."
He isn't troubled by the Matisse reference at all.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood and Fernando Colon, Michael Chavez. Michael Chavez said: ‘Washington Post’ Endorses Plagiarism to Defend Obama http://bit.ly/1AmDUM [...]
doesn't the Left hate the concept of itellectual- or artistic- proprietary?
Oh, sorry. That's when it's SOMEBODY else's. Always quick to wail when their pockets are being picked- they certainly have no issue with fleecing others. Spread the wealth, you know.
Plagiarism means little as well. Isn't the 'Hopey Changey' poster a theft of intellectual property? Hmmm…
can't seem to get this sort to fess up to anything. Something in the commie playbook (or is it Machiavelli?) about NEVER admitting mistakes? Oh well…
Needless to say this piece of 'art' will be relocated in anundisclosed location. No doubt right next to Van Jones…
What does Joe Biden have to say about this?
Perhaps the most damning statement to be made here is that this isn't even news, but what we've come to expect from Pinchy, WaPo and MSNBC et al. How the mighty have fallen.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jtsimpson/2009/...
This is great news. Now that I know it's perfectly acceptable, I'm going to make copies of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", rotate them 90 degrees, and resell them as my own.
This White House is full of filthy liars.
Regarding the NJ governors race, The official statement from the White House is that he did not even bother to watch any of the results as “they just didn’t matter and didn’t reflect on him: They were locally driven.”
Is that why Obammy ran down the turnpike 5 times to shine John Corizines' shoes?
Obama said today , regarding 10.2% unemployment rate. "I will not rest until America prosper's again".
He'd best be stocking up on some cocaine and N0-Doze.
Plus which, Gopnik merely changed the subject so as not to address the fact that he had failed to credit BH.
to be more precise, i assume you mean what does Biden say somebody else said about this?
Using the "Come on, lots of people do it" defense? Yeah, let's see them use that to beat a speeding ticket.
Of course, the poor old Washington Post is having a hard time right now and is too busy to provide a thought-out response. As it is, their top editors and writers will be working all night to explain how the 10.2% unemployment rate was inherited from the Bush administration.
It's really hard to understand what he's saying with that foot permanently stuck in his mouth.
Suddenly I had this image of Obama behind a mountain of cocaine ala "Scarface".
OK, I know matisse is supposed to be a famous artist, but maybe if this "work of art" had been something unique and stunning in the first place, Thomas wouldn't have had such an easy time ripping it off. I'm reminded of a comedy sketch I saw once of Pablo Picaso scribbling on napkins, signing them and selling them for thousands of dollars. But I guess empty and talentless art is appropriate in this situation, isn't it.
I think it's Czarface.
lol! Thanks for flagging the blog for review by homeland security, chopper, now we're all in trouble.
lol! Thanks for flagging the blog for review by homeland security, chopper, now we're all in trouble.
Will the coke counteract whatever-it-was that lead to his bizarre behavior when commenting on the Fort Hood shootings, or would it cause such?
I mean, sheesh, a Chicago NBC station posts a complaint about it? Even they are noticing something is just not right with him, and are talking about it. That is bad, very bad.
I gotta ask why anyone gives a crap about this?
Gopnik's arrogance doesn't quite veil his obvious insecurity. After all, how much longer will they be able to afford an art critic at the Washington Post ? 10.2 % plus one miffed ink-stained wretch. Unemployment sucks.
chopper
You gave me a little smile on a day with not much to smile about.
Dang Ben. Firing on all cylinders today. Major kudos to a Harvard lawyer that doesn't take himself too seriously by throwing in a "ain’t quite the same thing, there, Blake."
Gopnik. Sloppy shill? Guilty.
WAPO. Accomplice? Guilty.
Matisse. Genius? Guilty.
NYT. Whitewashers? Guilty.
Shepard Fairey. Copyright Infringement? Guilty.
Alma Thomas. Lightning rod? No Contest.
At this rate Ben we may have to start referring to you as Shapiro, Esq.
Vik
Noticed that too. Oh look, shiny thing.
I suspect that Obama will at some point be hospitalized for "exhaustion"…He's getting skinnier by the week.
Yeah , calling Picasso and Matisse empty and talentless is pretty appropriate for this website , as it's one of the dumbest comments you could make.
Picasso used to whip off pen drawings to pay his bar tab. They sell for quite a bundle these days.
It isn't what the artist got for it, it's what it's worth…
That's it!!! Detention with Rocco Landesman for you. (grin)
Brilliant response.
The common Picasso sketch anecdote:
Some guy told Picasso he’d pay him to draw a picture on a napkin. Picasso whipped out a pen and banged out a sketch, handed it to the guy, and said, “One million dollars, please.”
“A million dollars?” the guy exclaimed. “That only took you thirty seconds!”
“Yes,” said Picasso. “But it took me fifty years to learn how to draw that in thirty seconds.”
Maybe they can get a shot of the HNIC (Hubristic Narcissist in Chief) in a game of roundball with some of his synchophants to adorn the walls of his crib. How about some zebra skins on the kids bedroom walls and some lip rings for Michelle. Let's go Afro-centric all the way.
Go even further and rotate them 180 degrees, it becomes a totally different book, and would actually have a positive message about the American Dream.
Plenty of artists who use "appropriation" sell for quite a bundle these days too. Someone should investigate!
I bet some of them are socialists too.
And power will temporarily transfer to Biden for "just a few days." No worries, he should be quite restrained in what may be the one-and-only time in his entire life he will wield the power of the Presidency. What's the worse that can happen?
I have to say, that's an excellent question.
I will say that I am excited to see Picasso and Matisse added to the growing list (Sesame Street, The Simpsons , The Beatles, Larry David) that conservatives don't approve of. Who will be next?
I should have worded it differently. There's no telling who will be knocking on my door.
Be forewarned though……………….my dogs hate brown-shirts………………..and crappy art.
Elaborations?. . . Similarities?
Just say rotate!!
Biden says he remembers seeing Matisse live on television in 1910. He thought he was "clean and articulate for a Frenchman." He then expounded that "Watusi" could not have constituted plagiarism because copyright law is not mentioned in Article I of the Constitution.
I think what you have here is the basic need of any person who is left-wing to ridicule and dismiss any complaint, no matter how valid, if it comes from a Conservative.
It's basically the same issue as Bush Derangement Syndrome: they will go to no end of absurdity just to be distant and separate from a position stated by a Conservative (or someone they see as one, like Bush). They will claim the Surge didn't work, while it's working. They will claim that borrowing trillions is saving the economy, just because Conservatives prove it isn't. They will defend media bias and Obama trying to run the news media, just because they think it harms the Conservative position. And they will actually stand up in defense of plagiarism and theft just because it was made public by a Conservative.
This is why we rightly recognize their ideology as being a form of mental imbalance. It's about kneejerk reaction, not logical consideration of fact.
from the site Artlex.com
"appropriation – To take possession of another's imagery (or sounds), often without permission, reusing it in a context which differs from its original context, most often in order to examine issues concerning originality or to reveal meaning not previously seen in the original. This is far more aggressive than allusion or quotation, it is not the same as plagiarism however. An image reused in collage is an example, but more complete are the photographs that Sherri Levine (American) made of photographs by earlier photographers."
From Mr. Shapiro's piece above:
AP sued Fairey under the Copyright Act, explaining that “the Infringing Works copy all the distinctive and unequivocally recognizable elements of the Obama Photo in their entire detail, retaining the heart and essence of The AP’s photo, including but not limited to its patriotic theme … the striking similarity between The AP’s copyright image … of President Obama and the poster that Fairey made based on that image …
I think this what you're asking about.
Wouldn't golfing & basketball be considered resting?
This reminds me of the people who pedantically argue that downloading music isn't "theft", it's "copyright infringement".
Brilliant.
Who's Joe Biden?
So, instead of crediting Big Hollywood with the story, they choose to call attention on themselves and make a bunch of folks think they are full of crap instead, which usually results in loss of readership.
Makes sense to me.
No, they do it because the musicians aren't being paid by the record companies to begin with, and besides, the artist can always make money with "concerts and t-shirts". The actual music should be free. This is an inalienable right that apparently trumps any existing laws.
People can justify anything.
Free Republic says the painting is plagiarized? LOLOLOL! What would anybody at Free Republic know about art? They may know something about a velvet Elvis or those paintings of cats with big eyes, but art? LOLOL! Thanks for the joke of the day.
A very frightening thought indeed.
That was entirely hilarious. EXCELLENT one.
Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for the helluva big laugh!
in covering for obozo, gopnik was just looking for a way to say, somehow, that –
its Bush's fault
can America last until 2012, till we remove nobelbozo
Don't worry about it. All will be revealed in due course.
Oh yeah, didja hear this riddle? How do you keep an idiot in suspense?
I have to say, it's far from an excellent question.
Here's why I give a crap about this: It's another nail in the coffin of the liberal lyin'-assed media in this country and how they're complicit with full knowledge in dragging down this republic.
Or 2010 when he can be nollified.
I hope you're not shooting for clever.
AtheistCon, what a well-reasoned, well-said comment!
Thanks for laying it out so nicely (and truthfully). It's a pleasure to read comments like this one.
Oddly enough, the people with the barrels of ink are scrambling to cover their sorry, lyin', liberal asses. So, there must be more to it than you're willing to admit.
What's your favorite flavor of Kool-Aid?
What a … Gopnik.
You can tell it is plagiarized by deploying the radical new technique of looking at it. Then looking at the original. Then looking at it again.
I found it important that it wasn't a story to the Washington Post until the Washington Post decided it was a story, and then used it as an opportunity to knock conservatives rather than give credit to the person who broke it. This violates all tenants of journalistic ethics, and reporters have been fired for not giving proper credit to sources. Reporters have actually won Pulitzer Prizes for stories that were found to be fake! But obviously the WashPo can write its own rules!
It must be Bush's fault.
Not being a lawyer I don't know about the legal issues. I do wonder about the ethical issues.
If she was an artist of enough stature to get her work hung in the White House, then that work would have passed through either a dealer or a gallery exhibit. That would leave a paper trail, as in either case descriptions of "Watusi" would have almost certainly have been written for either a catalog or the exhibit's program.
If those descriptions explain that she was paying homage to Henri Matisse’s “The Snail” then no harm done.
However, if those descriptions avoid all mention of "The Snail" then it is pretty obvious she lifted Matisse’s work, rotated it and changed the colors just so she could maker a quick buck. That would be intellectual and artistic dishonesty of the first order.
The fact that the White House took the painting down speaks volumes.
Mr. Gopnik is a bit of a joke in the DC art scene. He gets by on the coattails of his more accomplished and talented brother. I'm not sure why the WaPo can't find someone better.
Asking only what is patently obvious, moral relevatism.
Shepard Fairey isn't above suing someone who makes a derivative work off of one of his pieces of "art", even while he himself steals ideas from others.
Now, THAT, my friend, was funny.
Either the wit is getting better in here, or I'm getting easier. (LOL)
This is very good reasoning, and would probably settle this issue once and for all.
I must say, though, those in the tank have figured this out and are busily "scrubbing" as we speak.
I hope they get their lyin' asses busted over this. I'd love to see WaPo go the way of the white buffalo.
The obamas total knowledge of art (and literature, especially poetry) is limited to one question. Is the artist, author, poet BlacK? As my mom used to say about posers like the obama's and their chicago cronies,"Their taste is in their mouth!"
"Accusing Thomas of “plagiarism” here is precisely like accusing the Beatles of “plagiarism” for having recorded “Roll Over Beethoven” "
I wasn't alive when the Beatles release With the Beatles, but every medium I've owned which includes the Beatles' version of the song (vinyl, cassette, CD) has properly attributed the song to Berry.
Maybe the WaPo just doesn't have anyone on staff that knows what "plagiarism" is? It is a long word, after all.
A man went up to Pablo Picasso once and said to him "I don't understand, you are the most talented artist since Raphael, why do you paint all these strange paintings".
Picasso replied "If I am the most talented artist since Raphael, who are you to judge what I decide to paint?"
What is getting overlooked here, is the whole idea that the Obummer's decided to fill the white house with the work of "African-american artists". Could you imagine if Sarah Palin (in 3 years) decided to fill the WH with the work of "European-american artists".
Reducing visual art to the ethnicity of the creator is a new low. The White House is the People's house, not the purview of an ethnic subdivision. The fact the work of this Old Radical Lady is just a cheap homage to Matisse only echoes the point that it's the art, not skin color of the artist that is relevant.
Obama sucks.
Since the President who's balls you lick is a moral reductionist, historical revisionist, and a relativist, he would be the first to tell you that anyone's subjective opinion about art is as valid as anyone else's.
Now…back under bridge, Troll.
THat is a poor comparison. This is not like bootlegging a song , but rather covering it in a way which comments on the original. Like for instance if a blues singer covered a Led Zeppelin song which itself was blues derived. The result of wouldn't be just a copy of the original but a new work. You are also confusing merely acquiring music with creating something.
I think what you have here is the basic desire of a conservative to claim knowledge and judgement on a topic without actually knowing much about it.
It's also kind of sad that Alma Thomas has the be the vehicle for this faux scandal as her life story is pretty heartwarming and all.
"How do you keep an idiot in suspense?"
Tell him Sarah Palin is about to show up and make a speech?
They picked a variety of artists, not all black , or even mostly black.
And by the way : "The roughly 450-piece permanent White House collection includes five works by black artists"
Only 5 out of 450 in the permanent collection, maybe a couple more wouldn't be going overboard?
Also, change the printing to white on black. I'm sure that'll be derided as a hate crime.
Because it's a way to bash Obama , and the fact that it also involves bashing a black artist is a bonus.
"According to art historian Ann Gibson's essay in the catalogue for Thomas's 1998 retrospective [ed note: not Corcoran curator Jonathan Binstock as I originally wrote], Thomas, who'd just retired at 70 and began painting full-time, took direct inspiration from the late work of Matisse, saying, "If an old, crippled-up man can do that, I can do it."
Gibson also notes the audacity of a then-unknown painter appropriating directly from the last, most advanced, abstract work of one of the 20th century's greatest artists. Her reworking of Matisse, he wrote, "was more than an implicit defiance of modernism's creed of originality." But one page later she backs off:
It's important to note that while Thomas was appropriating, she was not making what has since come to be called "appropriation art." Her main intention was probably not to deny originality as a value. But neither was she trying to hide her source–to fake."
He is the Prince of Lies.
THe above is from : http://greg.org/archive/2009/10/10/on_wingnuts_on...
palmtree, is it true what they say about you?
That you eat hot pockets three times a day? And live in your Mom's basement? And that the only difference between you and Rosie O'Donnell is that she's actually kissed a girl?
Hey, palmtree, be honest now. George Bush killed all those American citizens on 9/11, with some kind of magical explosives, didn't he? Oh yeah, and AIDS was created way back in the 1970s in a government laboratory, to kill the Black folk and (incidentally, of course) to give Jeremiah Wright sermon material. Come on, you can tell us. What's a little secret between friends. SMD, palmtree. That's what I'm trying to say.
palmtree,
Thanks, that's what I was looking for, although not what I expected to be found. I expected much sleezier motives on her part (sorry arteest lady). It seems clear she didn't try to hide her connection to Matisse. IMHO, that makes this story little more than a tempest in a teapot.
I wonder why, aside from the fact that it was an uninspired piece of crap, the White House took it down?
I would be one to question words like "plagiarism" and "copyright" when you're talking about painting-to-painting influence, but I think the bigger issue here is that you challenged expert art world opinions on what's accepted as good. I minored in art history and can tell you — the art establishment doesn't like its wisdom being questioned by upstarts, especially when they point out something (like the copy/inversion) that they didn't notice themselves. And while it's clearly Matisse-influenced, it doesn't sound like the photoshoppish copy job has been widely noticed before.
How exactly did you "break the story" on October 12th if Holland Cotter called it an "out and out steal" on October 10th? It seems to me that what you have done is taken Holland Cotter's observation repackaged it as your own and added a deranged partisan angle to it. That strikes me as rather similar to what Alma Thomas did with the Matisse. By the way, should Braque sue Picasso or should Picasso sue Braque?
And neither are you!
If you're not already married, perhaps Mr. Cotter is in rut, and would be available for some in-depth hero worship.
But all miss the most important point – that the Whine House is changing the picture because it doesn't fit the decor. Which is tantamount to saying that the picture doesn't match the sofa….I expect to see emos and art students stampeding from Organizing for America, mass suicide at the NEA, and Clement Greenberg rolling in his grave….
Could I just have a moment to dispel a persistent and unfair rumor that is being circulated?
OUR PRESIDENT IS NOT GAY!
Please don't say that he is. It is a hurtful and unproven charge. While it's true that he has been known to hold one, it was only for a friend, or should I say only for a close, personal friend, and even then, only until the acme of turgidity began to deteriorate.
Sorry, I forgot the part about how we Conservatives hate our fellow citizens who decided to get born Black. Yep, yep, yep. Thanks, palmtree. We need people like you to remind us of racial matters. Sometimes, we get intent on policy and political principles and forget all about race.
I wonder how many commenters, like me, had no idea the artist was black.
You're a sad case, my not-friend.
Verily, Obama is sucking, even as we speak.
A revelation? I found a statement in a Reply to a Post that the artist was black. I didn't know that. But if it were true, it would make sense since Michelle wrote that she would throughout her life give preference to blacks. This choice of a piece by a black artist undoubtedly had a racial component in the choice and vetting must have been waived with the alternative to ignorance being White House culpability. These liberal folk seem to want to provide special licenses to blacks and indulge below standard behavior otherwise condemnable. Newspapers. Unacceptable conduct tolerated. Hmm. I see the name "Blair." I wonder why? Blair. Blair. How does that fit in. Ah, the word "Times" is appearing. I see Big Apple. no wait, New York. Now to assemble the information.
I have to say, I really like this shapiro kid
Barry Sotero is just afraid of the whole topic of "plagerism" with Bill Ayers having been the real author of Dreams of My Father and all. He is just afraid to even give the idea of fake authorship of anything take root. Kind of like Banquo's ghost or Sancho Ponzo shooting at windmills.
You got one thing right — Ben Shapiro *is* hardly worthy of that kind of brush-off. He really should get a less dignified one.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks likea duck , it's probably a duck!
Why is the name of this risible painting, "Watusi," being construed as a borrowing from an old Chubby Checker track? True, Checker recorded a 1963 b-side called "Wah-Watusi," but it was a cover of the hit version of the song released the previous year by his fellow Philadelphians (and labelmates at the Cameo Records teen-hit factory), the Orlons. The painting's title is just an instance of meaningless Afro-centrism. And while the Checker and Orlons records both credited the writers of their song (in the same way that the Beatles credited the writers of all the songs they covered), Thomas's canvas is simply an uncredited lift from an earlier artist with an actual original vision. If the Obamas felt themselves in need of a work by a black artist, there are any number of superior choices. Romare Beardon, for example, wore his modernist influences on his sleeve, but transmuted them with inspirations that were entirely his own.
Plagiarism is nothing that concerns liberals in the least. Mike Barnicle – the infamous Boston Globe plagiarist is on B.S.NBC now and Ellen "I heard him say Boy" Goodman of the NYT plagiarized content earlier this year.
This is why it's so robustly defended by WaPo.
Journalistic swiping is just biz as usual for the liberal MSM, so why not in art as well?
Or maybe WaPo is just PO'd because Andrew's BG is getting more attention and page views than they are?
Hey! Can I borrow that?!
LOL — You certainly may borrow freely. I hope it works for ya.
I just got a bit fed up with our mutual friend, LOL. I hope I didn't go too far.
Thanks for the reply.
Nixon's Watergate scandal wasn't a scandal until the Post dug up the story and stuck to it. Good work picking up on an artistic scandal. The Obama administration did right by removing the picture but not by protecting the artist.
total hypocrisy knows no bounds, Shamelessness is their calling card…
LOL…just LOL
Letter just sent to the Washington Post's ombudsman:
Dear Sir:
As a former art critic for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, I've been following the story about Alma Thomas's "Watusi (Hard Edge)" in the White House's art collection. I must say that I was dismayed by Blake Gopnik's gullible reporting, particularly when he wrote that the White House spokesperson's defense of the work's originality "made sense." Really? I guess if you drink enough KoolAid it does. But for those of us sticking to legal standards for art (and copyright), it makes sense only politically.
I've seen Matisse's "Snail" and Thomas's "Watusi." And I agree with the NYTimes: The latter is a cheap ripoff.
Bad enough that Gopnik swallowed the spin. Bad enough that an art critic doesn't understand the gravity of copyright infringement. But now, having just read Gopnik's email response to the writer who broke the story — http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bshapiro/2009/1... — I'm vowing to avoid everything written by Blake Gopnik.
While his failure to meet the minimum in journalistic standards falls on his editors as well, his response to the writer who originally broke the story reveals an utter lack of professional or personal integrity. Rather than acknowledge the source, Gopnik condescends and mocks, then distorts the truth about plagiarism. In the process, he reveals why so many people are choosing to get their news from sources other than mainstream newspapers: Reporters have shown they can no longer be trusted to work as honest watchdogs. They have descended into lapdogs. And Gopnik has now basically rolled over and wet himself.
Sibella Giorello
http://www.sibellagiorello.com
"They may know something about a velvet Elvis or those paintings of cats with big eyes, but art? LOLOL! "
You know you're dealing with a moron who has a limited frame of reference when goes right for velvet Elvis to dig at people. The art world is an insular circle jerk so failing to fully understand or embrace it's standards is neither an indictment or indication of a lack of sophistication. It is the mark of sanity.
If you didn't know she was black you must not have read this thread because plenty of people mentioned it. Such as " How about some zebra skins on the kids bedroom walls and some lip rings for Michelle. Let's go Afro-centric all the way." Oh I'm sure that comment had nothing to do with race right?
Well , actually it had been noticed before , and this whole fake scandal is both absurd and hateful. How about that?
"According to art historian Ann Gibson's essay in the catalogue for Thomas's 1998 retrospective [ed note: not Corcoran curator Jonathan Binstock as I originally wrote], Thomas, who'd just retired at 70 and began painting full-time, took direct inspiration from the late work of Matisse, saying, "If an old, crippled-up man can do that, I can do it."
Gibson also notes the audacity of a then-unknown painter appropriating directly from the last, most advanced, abstract work of one of the 20th century's greatest artists. Her reworking of Matisse, he wrote, "was more than an implicit defiance of modernism's creed of originality." But one page later she backs off:
It's important to note that while Thomas was appropriating, she was not making what has since come to be called "appropriation art." Her main intention was probably not to deny originality as a value. But neither was she trying to hide her source–to fake."
Here we go again…somehow or another it always gets back to being a racial issue. We are never allowed to voice any dissent of any kind because if we do we are racists. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
I'm not calling you personally a racist or saying you can't voice dissent.
If there weren't any racial posts on this board then I couldn't be a jerk and point them out. But you know, how do you go from an art debate to lip rings for Michelle?
the watusi was by the orlons, not chubby checker.
Fair enough, Palmtree. I stand corrected.
BUT….from the WSJ:
The Obamas are sending ripples through the art world as they put the call out to museums, galleries and private collectors that they’d like to borrow modern art by African-American, Asian, Hispanic and female artists for the White House.
So, I'll stand by my point. The choices have nothing to do with the merit of the art, they are politically correct. Mr. Obama chooses his art the way Bill Clinton picked his Attorney General.
Only 5 out of 450 in the permanent collection, maybe a couple more wouldn't be going overboard?
Good Liberal. Bean count and apply quota. Why dont you guys ever do this to the NBA?
Neither does his annoyance at having his bluff called. Using the Beatles covering Chuck Berry example is telling on his part, subliminally, considering Berry later successfully sued them (Lennon) for ripping him off on "Come Together".
I guess some folks don't have the sense to drop dead soon enough.
"….I expect to see emos and art students stampeding from Organizing for America, mass suicide at the NEA"
We can only hope.
"Barry Sotero is just afraid of the whole topic of "plagerism" with Bill Ayers having been the real author of Dreams From My Father and all."
Isn't the Vice President the Plagiarism Czar?
Very good Ben Shapiro… I always enjoy your read.
I saw the comment and didn't connect that the artist was black.
Nonetheless, I plead guilty to racism. I think an appropriate punishment would be to impose massive energy taxes on the heat and power for my house, and more taxes at the gasoline pump. Wait, that's not enough: I think my health insurance should be stripped from me, as well.
Ok, now that we're in total agreement, would you shut the hell up?
Nice article. However, the painting seems appropriate in this White House given the Vice President's colorful history with plagiarism…
Biden the plagerism czar? Think not. He only plagerized a single speech and part of a college paper. Nothing like the scale of Obama who fakes an entire book, the very book that was touted as the Second Coming of The One who would save us all. Gheesh, I guess this means Bill Ayers should have been elected President since he now is confirmed as the one who ghost wrote Dreams From My Father.
You must be logged in to post a comment.