Like the Ecstasy of Influence, this article questions the same issue “Who owns the art?”; unlike Ecstasy, this article puts forward another issue, “What if the copyright of art is infringed?”
One of the interesting thing I found is both artists did what they believed is right, yet people seem to stand for the Garret more. This may attribute to the recent trend of plagiarism. It is a little bit naive to say therefore the art field should be loving and sharing, but I think the point here is, it is common for artists to refer to each other’s work and produce their own. However, only if this consensus shall be reached could a harmonious community be built.
Another thought I have is, in the article, Susan took this pic under a different context as the writer’s. Therefore, the answer to the question “who owns the art?” is actually no one. But if the significance or context behind the art is deprived, the art turns into pure commodity (owns only commodity value as the Ecstasy of Influence writes about), and becomes no arts at all.