Sand wrote:
That I find merit in Ackman's work where others seem mortally offended that he experiments with various intriguing techniques does not mean I am his knight in shining armor. I didn't "jump" on any comment, merely pointed out that there are alternate and valid points of view. You are the jumpy one to become offended that someone might feel differently from you. There is nothing wrong with declaring sources or refusing to use photos as a starting point but sources may be interesting but not vital and using photos to base ones experiments on in no way invalidates final results. If Ackman plays around with various techniques that other established and recognized artistic creators have used with great success, why demand special requirements from him? Schwitters, Braque, Picasso, Duchamps, Oppenheim, Tinguely and many others have worked with all sorts of weird materials and people delight in the results. It merely strikes me as very odd that people should hammer Ackman for doing much the same thing and obtaining interesting results.
I never took issue with your point of view. You're welcome to think what you like when it comes to art.
My problem was that you took a constructive comment that I had made and warped it into some idea that I was
'demanding' Ackman change his art and claiming that I was
'insisting' he do anything. I'm not. Ackman can draw in fingerpaint for all I care. I just think that if he is looking for better reception (and from some of his comments, it seems an issue to him), stating clearly when he used others' work as templates will come across as more open.
It was a PR suggestion and has nothing to do with the art itself, and Ackman is free to choose to ignore it if
he chooses to.
If you wish to debate the pros and cons of declaring sources, perhaps you should make another thread. I'm not interested in arguing here. This is Ackman's thread.
(@ bewarethebob, thanks }