On The Rights of the Molotov Man

I was impressed by the layout of this article. When I began to read Joy Garnett's perspective on her painting of the Molotov Man, I thought to myself "Man is this article one-sided or what." When I realized that Susan Meiselas would have an opportunity to rebut the Joy, I was pleasantly surprised. I think its interesting that this article is based off a discussion at NYU, between the two ladies. Its pretty funny that these women disagree so broadly, but their discussion was so even tempered. I think they would have been more livid with each other if they had been arguing the same issue. But they are debating two vastly different issues. Joy's argument is centered around her personal work with an image that she has no emotional ties to. Joy perceives the image of the Molotov Man as her own. She feels ownership with regards to the image because she stumbled upon it and emotionally detached from the picture by ignoring it for a small stretch of time. However, I feel like it would be hard to detach oneself from an image as powerful as the Molotov Man. Emotion is etched across his face. The utter power that is built up in his arm that will momentarily erupt is extremely captivating. There is no way that staring at this image for days upon days wouldn't make one feel attached to the picture. I feel closely connected to images that I am editing on Photoshop or images that I am painting. If I ever get success in the artworld for a particular piece that used found images, I think it is only fair to acknowledge the original artist. I know that the Molotov Man's struggle and the right to his image is his own, but let's be fair here. Sue Meiselas put in a lot of hard work to get that masterful shot. She had to be in Nicaragua during very volatile period and connect with the turbulence of the period in order to compose such a powerful photograph. It speaks very loudly. Joy Garnett should have credited the original photographer. At least she should have looked for the original photographer to give credit. Perhaps she was afraid that if she had the knowledge of who created the photo, she would lose her newfound "ownership" of the image. She seemed like she wanted the photo to have been unattached and floating in cyberspace. That would be nice, but with how connected the internet is, the truth will always come out. When I read Sue Garnett's rebuttle, I understood her connection to the image, but the debate should have been more focused on the ownership of art. She was making an emotional plea rather than an elegant argument regarding art.