Oddly enough, the only significant landmark I had equally significant desire to see, prior to my arrival in Paris, was the "Bridge at Giverny" which likely served as both subject and platform for the "father of impressionism", Claude Monet.

During the last twenty years I have attended many continuing education courses to forward my career as an optician. Three or so years ago, the end of a long weekend of classes was nearing and I had little energy and even less concern for the final of my registered hours, my tardiness revealing my disconnect. The door to the lecture hall swung open almost as to reveal the only available space in the room; no seats were available and the walls were completely lined with attendees. This was the last course offered for the conference and as such I could only assume the souls in the chairs were merely desperate to fill their certification requirements. "Incorrect" doesn't scratch it; "mistaken" doesn't come close; "dead wrong" only barely meets the description of how very off I was.

The class: Art and the Eye. The lecturer: Phyllis Rakow, COMT, NCLC (gotta get those credentials in there!)

Thirty minutes had already lapsed by the time my full attention was brought upon the podium. This was to prove inconsequential other than delaying a life-changing perspective I hope soon to share...


http://www.kylekuykendall.com/
http://www.ashleyandkyle.us/

The Art of Integrity

Hardly any of us could manage to afford a bonafide replica of the Mona Lisa, let alone the original. What, then, is the problem with snagging an image here or there for our own personal benefit - to order on a coffee mug, a t-shirt, a print, or "just to look at"?

Da Vinci is dead, but his endowment to the world of art came at a price - while he lived he dedicated countless hours to the production of each work, hours of his life that he would never reclaim. His passing might seem to indicate "free license" to use these paintings and drawings for our own ends - how can it possibly impact him? It doesn't. It impacts the entire world.

Using an image for your own personal enjoyment, while undoubtedly an act intended to complement the artist, begets the unfortunate capitalization on this liberal access by persons who would seek to profit from something they did not create. Organizations such as the Claude Monet Foundation at Giverny rely at least in part on the sale of merchandise portraying the artist's works. They use this revenue for any number of purposes ranging from research to restoration to upkeep, such as in the gardens surrounding Monet's home. They also participate in community and invite young aspiring artists to delve deeper into the world of creation. In effect, they keep art alive by protecting and honoring the integrity of the images they hold licenses to. Were that funding not available, we might eventually see the plowing and paving over of something so precious and meaningful, an act that no amount of effort could restore.

When you "grab" an image for personal use, you unwittingly promote the further theft of that image by people who would undermine the foundation of art itself. Furthermore, you may threaten the very lives of the artists from whom you steal as many are attempting to live off of the income. In this digital age, many avenues have opened for visual artists - avenues for promotion, dissemination, and ultimately livelihood. One immensely powerful ability has come in the means of sending and receiving image copies, creating a dangerously exploitable loophole.

This ease of transportation comes at a great price: the risk of image theft. It's a risk that I and countless others have taken for the sake of "getting the word out". Companies such as Facebook have protections in place to prevent the "original" files from being so readily available - images posted here are pared down to a more reasonable and manageable file size. They warn of the use of copyrighted images and request that none be posted, a somewhat moot request given that any image is copyrighted the moment of its creation - ALL images are copyrighted, though not necessarily recorded. Facebook claims ownership of the low resolution images for the sake of being able to display them, as I and so many have requested, without fear of legal action. They are in no way condoning the theft of those images.

I don't mind at all the "snagging", "grabbing", "borrowing" that goes on with my photographs posted there as long as you have at least provided me the opportunity to decline. When you do so without my permission, not only is it unethical, it says to me "I like your work tremendously and so much so that I'm willing to steal it for [my desktop, my wall, my blog, my this, that and everything in between]". Understand that I don't find that to be too friendly a gesture.

Why post on mediums such as Facebook, then? I'm hoping that you'll be inspired to enjoy art, to look at your surroundings with a more careful and caring eye, that you may seek to travel yourself and see this world and all its beauty rather than the ugly morning headlines so many of us are bombarded by. I'm hoping, too, that you'll be satisfied to view the images in their original location and that, should you enjoy them so much, you may ultimately choose to buy a legitimate, licensed copy from my website, www.kylekuykendall.com.

I will never know how many have chosen the less-prurient path or how many "copies" are floating around.

I do hope, however, that you'll show my (at times life-threatening) efforts some respect and at least tell me when you want a copy. You never know, I may just give you two!

Thank you for your time, interest and respect.

If you agree with these principles, please feel free to repost my article - no formal permissions needed! ;)

Kyle Kuykendall
http://www.kylekuykendall.com/
http://www.ashleyandkyle.us/