In this text, with sections written by Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas, discusses intellectual property and contextualisation. Meiselas, owner to the rights of the photograph used in Garnett’s “Molotov” painting, argues that photos and other works of art should be represented in their proper context: furthermore, she states that decontextualisation removes part of the meaning of the original work. Garnett, on the other hand, believes that nobody should be able to control the specific context of the work or content. This, he concludes, would be akin to censorship and limiting artistic freedom.
However, are these two views so polar that no agreement can be reached whatsoever? It is very possible to give proper context to certain works while allowing room for creative liberties and freedoms. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the artist, to the best of their ability, to properly contextualise works they draw inspiration from. While no person is ever truly objective and absolutely contextual, deliberate recontextualisation is malicious and does not serve the audience whatsoever. To tie this to the previous reading, “The Ecstasy of Influence,” the recontextualised work would give the audience no meaning: it wouldn’t be art. Instead, it would purely be misleading propaganda. This is not to say that authors cannot have agendas while making art, but purposefully using misdirection, misattribution, and malintent is not art.