WSJ Artist Novak Calls Out ‘Plagiarist’
By Rob Tornoe | October 14th, 2009 | PERMALINK
Noli Novak, a staff artist at the Wall Street Journal responsible for some of the paper’s trademark stipple portraits, has called out Spanish artist José-MarÃa Cano for plagiarizing her drawing of President Obama in a piece of artwork he produced.
Noli Novak's original stipple drawing is on the left, while José-MarÃa Cano's artwork hangs on the right.
The drawing a question, a portrait of Obama done for the Journal in May of 2008, was clearly used as the basis for Cano’s piece, replicated using a technique of painting with hot wax. Cano’s painting was then given to President Obama in Prague by former Czech Republic president Václav Havel.
The artwork in question was from Cano’s ‘The Wall Street 100,’ a series of paintings inspired from newsprint.
Novak, who herself used photographs to create her drawings, argues that she’s transforming them into something new, while Cano is simply replicating her working and passing it on to others as his own.
“This means a copy of a drawing I made was given as a gift to Vaclav Havel who then re-gifted it for president Obama?! And it’s now hanging in the White House?!” an angry Novak sarcastically posted on her blog. “You can bet your knickers I will do my damndest to let the President know he was scammed by the Spaniards and the Czechs!”
Comments: 8. ADD A COMMENT. |
|
Comments
Comment from Howard Tayler
Time October 14, 2009 at 5:23 pm
There needs to be a third survey option. I don’t think this is plagiarism (I believe Cano cited her source as the WSJ) but it’s not a legal re-working, either. Not unless Novak and the WSJ have released reproduction rights.
Regardless, it’s a cool piece.
Comment from Kyle Robinson
Time October 14, 2009 at 5:26 pm
It’s plagiarism, all right. Even the author of the article that surrounded Novak’s portrait might be able to claim plagiarism. But it’s not like Cano tried to sell it. It’s more like a child drawing a picture of Snoopy using a book as reference and then giving it to his or her parents. The originality of the work isn’t important.
What Cano should have done, being a professional and all, is cite the source where the original art came from.
Comment from Nate O
Time October 14, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I wish we could have a culture where artwork could be legitimately “inspired” like this without everybody crying plagiarism. True, it wasn’t proper of Cano to use Novak’s drawing without her permission or even citing her, but you have to admit that both the drawing and the painting have an interesting artistic aspect, and belong in this world. Novak’s work is transformative of an original photo (which she may or may not have negotiated rights to transform), and Cano’s painting is somewhat transformative of Novak’s drawing.
I think both steps represent legitimate artistic transformation, even though Cano’s “transformation” seems to be just applying the same picture to a different, larger format. I think “paintings inspired by newsprint” is a legitimate form of expression, though I would have liked to see Cano credit Novak (and maybe Novak credit the photographer of the original as well).
Also, your poll should have a third option. There is some space between your two answers that neither covers.
Comment from Gary Barker
Time October 15, 2009 at 2:09 am
The original work is an illustration and not a cartoon, and has been pointed out is simply a stipple copy of an existing photograph. Cano has obviously made no attempt to create an ‘original’ and has simply lifted Novak’s piece wholesale and so is therefore guilty of copyright breaches and plagiarism. However I think Novak should have credited the creator of the photograph she originally worked from because it is obvious this was not entirely a free hand piece.
Comment from Ernesto
Time October 15, 2009 at 9:59 am
She has not answered on whose image she based her own drawing though. Supposing she did the drawing from memory, or from a still video image, or from a collection of images, who owns the likeness of a public figure?
Also, can a staff illustrator who gives all her creative rights away to her publisher can really claim ownership (otherwise you are not entitled to accuse anyone of plagiarism, can you) over an artwork?
I agree the Spanish artist´s work is not terribly original (in the loose sense of the word), but the presence of type on the piece makes it clear it is an act of appropriation of a newspaper image… probably the guy could have at least acknowledged his source openly, or even request permission. Then again, artists who ask for permission to do what they do tend not to be terribly interesting.
It seems obvious to me she is just getting the publicity she would not have had had she remained an anonymous staff doodler…
Comment from geoff
Time October 15, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I guess we could always argue that Andy Warhol plagiarised Campbell’s Soup Cans, and Marcel Duchamps’ art wasn’t, and that Damien Hurst didn’t even make the sharks, but… who cares? isn’t context everything?
Comment from ron
Time October 15, 2009 at 7:14 pm
No Geoff… Andy Warhol did not plaguarize cambells soup, he used it as a subject. He transformed photos into a new medium with filters and colors etc. Just as the Novak used a photograph in this case his illustration.
Cano on the other hand just took the clipping with the origional illustration and passed it off as his. Not much more creativity than a scrap book.
Comment from Donna Barstow
Time October 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm
What asshats could possibly think this was NOT plagiarism? I bet they were all Spaniards & Czechs.