On The Rights of Molotov Man was a highly interesting read. I read it after Lethem’s piece on plagiarism and felt that the two complimented each other. Garnett and Meiselas’s essay conveys so many emotions and feelings that run through an artist. These emotions and feelings were particularly heightened in relation to the very real threat of an infringement of intellectual property and creative control. After being hit with potential legal action over the production of the Molotov Man, Joy Garnett is sent into a panic, unsure of her creative future.
What this essay really sheds light on is the question of can we really control art? Who really does own the rights to an image? Should anyone? How can we stop the reproduction and appropriation of artworks? What constitutes enough change to render a ‘no challenge’ to the original piece?
Susan Meisela responds to Garnett in the piece where she explores the incident of the Molotov Man. Meisela states “No one can “control” art, of course, but it is important to me in fact, it is central to my work-that I do what I can to respect the individuality of the people I photograph, all of whom exist in specific times and places” (56). Meisela continues to recount that she presents art work with the main goal of contextualizing a time for these people depicted, yet Garnett has the opposite intention, to decontextualize (56).
To conclude the piece, Meisela states “I never did sue Joy in the end, nor did I collect any licensing fees. But I still feel strongly, as I watch Pablo Arauz’s context being stripped
away-as I watch him being converted into the emblem of an abstract riot-that it would be a
betrayal of him if I did not at least protest the diminishment of his act of defiance.” (58)
What I would question in Meisela’s reply is who should actually be credited. The artist for capturing the work or the individual who is depicted? After all, isn’t it their story? Their face? Their being in its entirety being depicted as an artistic piece? Whilst she encourages and demands the contextualization of her subjects, why is it the artist who claims pretty much all of the glory?