Is Mail-art Original?

[Lisa Malmar]

A simple question...

 

Should mail art be original... as in one of kind, hand crafted, original, not photocopied or printed via an electronic printer. 

--Lisa

 

[Rain Rien Nevermind]

MAIL ART IS ORIGINAL
MAIL ART IS ORIGINAL
MAIL ART IS ORIGINAL
MAIL ART IS THREERIGINAL

 

Ray Johnson VELOX

bye rain rien neverre-riginal 

[Rain Rien Nevermind]

RAY JOHNSON WINS BY A RED NOSE  RAY JOHNSON WINS BY A RED NOSE  HE WHO READ KNOWS

[Plush Possum Studio-Rose McGuinn]

we in our Studio have always liked this guy. Three of us a suckers for a cute face equipped with (sigh!) dimples. A killer combo......

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Bonjour!

Perphas part of the answer to this lies in the domain of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

If you create, say, a collage, by cutting someone else's copyrighted photo (to which you do not own the image, ie I, rights) in two; write 'From Lisa of IUOMA' in the middle, and stick the two bits together with one of them upside down, then you have created an 'original' work, and it is yours.. If you just copy ('recycle'?) the original in such a way that someone else's IPR have been used for commercial purposes (that's important, the $ element of this) then it is not original, and you would be liable to claims under IPR legislation.

I am certain that the artistic element of this is very different, and that Ruud will illuminate us on this.

Regards, Val

[Ruud Janssen]

Mail-Art has to do with the process. Nothing with the artifact. You could even copy, steal or borrow and go against any artistic rule, and it still can ne mail-art.

Go ahead, enter the Van Gogh museum and stick a postage stamp on one of the paintings. Bring it to the postal office and mail it out. That is mail-art too. In the eyes of the officials it would be stealing, and the addressee that gets the piece won't be receiving a normal piece of mail-art for sure.....

 

Ruud

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Bonjour again! Sorry, but I have no slogans/catch-phrases or photos, but further to my earlier message:

i) the concept of 'value added' is important in defining originality. However, a problem about this is defining whether the value added is artistic as opposed to commercial;

ii) if in doubt, a warning you should heed is -- do not mess with big corporations, 'cos they have lawyers especially to defend their IPR. Warholl could produce silk screen images of Campbell soup tins, Coke bottles etc almost 50 years ago, but I'm not at all certain that he would have such an easy task if he tried to do the same in today's litiganeous world;

iii) don't mess with, especially, the International Olympics Committee: it's currently gunning for anyone and everyone who is using the word 'Olympics' and/or the 5-circle Olympic logo in the run-up to the 2012 London Games.

Finally, as Ruud so rightly says, it's the process and the end product that are all important in defining originality

Regards, Val

 

...who awaits more photos etc

[Ruud Janssen]

Everybody likes originals. They are costly and time-consuming. That is why reproduction techniques are thought out. original concepts are rare and very valuable. In mail-art we focus on the concept of how communication is integrrate in the artwork. Sending out originals or even copies isn't always mail-art. Somehow the communication-process should be integrated in the piece. That makes something mail-art. Not an easy task, but give it a thought.

[MaryAnne]

hi lisa.

the answer to this is simple ... whatever you want to do, do it. whatever you want to send, send it..

the only rule is that there are no rules.

enjoy

[Ruud Janssen]

the best advice for sure!

[Lisa Malmar]

Thanks everyone. I joined this group to produce original work - a kind of a 'kick in the creative arse' as is were. So, I'm a bit slower, yeah, but I'm sending originals. I was just curious as to what others did and thought.

And I do like the process and thinking about what will make it through the postal service! The idea of the Van Gogh is not without merit ;-) 

[Plush Possum Studio-Rose McGuinn]

Hi Lisa! Glad to know you!

No doubt Vincent himself would have been a rabid sender of mail-art had he been born to enjoy this day and age! ;) Ruud's comment here is perfect.

And I, too, am finding the challenges inherent in the process for keeping to originals whenever possible to be a most instructive exercise. It really can be healing. In fact, I'll admit I was in a creative junk mode, hardly daring to acknowledge I'd hit a new, alltime low before beginning with IUOMA. That old "kick in the arse" might be just what we needed, eh?

 

[Valentine Mark Herman]

Cosmologically, there has to be a limit as to what is Mail Art.

Is Rain Rien's photo Mail Art?

I don't think it is.

It's a photo.

The witty caption may be an attempt to transform it into something else, but really it's just a photo.

A photo sent by e-mail.

And if we accept that as Mail Art then there's massive of stuff floating around on e-mails, facebook, etc -- here's a photo of me; here's one of the dog; here's one of me and the dog; here's one of me, the dog and the bloke from next door; here's me, and Fred, the bloke from next door, drinking a cup of tea; etc, etc -- but are those photos Mail Art?

I don't think so.

They are just photos.

The photography is there, but where's the Art?

Now someone is going to tell me that photography is Art, and I don't challenge this at all.

But it's not Mail Art.

Mail Art for me has to have at least two elements to it:

First, Art.

Second, something to do with Mail (postal mail, e-mail, stamps, envelopes, postcards, whatever).

Now someone (Rain Rien?) is going to tell me that his photo was Art, and that it was sent by Mail, ergo it is Mail Art.

To me it's still just a photo.

I've come full circle.

So it's probably time to stop for now.

Goodbye.