Warholism & Quakerdom

This post is about an ethical muddle I'm in that I'm working my way out of. I am trying to be a good Quaker.

To be brief, I am careless about the pictures I put on the CQ Facebook site. They are pictures that are sometimes mine, sometimes borrowed with permission, and sometimes not; obviously that last one is the problem. To some people, it's clearly unethical, because careful photographers line up a shot and therefore own that view and that interpretation, and for me to take it, even if I alter it (which I do), is stealing.

It has bothered me because, often, I'm too busy to go looking for a free one, or to dig deep in my own archive, although I have taken many in my time. It's a matter of time to me, time and inspiration. I want to inspire, show where I see the divine. And sometimes I see it in other people's pictures, and I'm in a hurry.

Do I sound like I'm justifying a crime? If so, it's because I am. I can see photographers' objection. But, it's not like I'm selling them. I'm showing inspiration. To me, if you are at the top of the road to Monument Valley, and you take a picture of that road leading down into the desert (you know what I'm talking about, I hope), you don't own that view because thousands of people have taken that very same picture. I know some people will say, I waited for sunset, I set up my tripod, etc. True. But that view was there before you were. And I doctored it anyway.

This too is just justification. The way I doctor it is 1) go to Lunapic, 2) upload photo, 3) go to Art=Kandinsky, 4) notice that you can kandinsky it 100%-1%, choose what's best, 5) save. It makes a picture. more impressionistic. It adds lines. It may or may not be AI but it's been around for a while. "Cartooning" it is another clever trick. It's just things that pop artists do.

My meeting also was uneasy with it. Perhaps you can tell I'm uneasy with it. I am determined to do exclusively my own, or wiki-commons free (I haven't quite mastered that), so as to have a clearer conscience. One person said, and I'm grateful, "you don't always know, or can't tell, how a photographer will feel about your using their photograph." There are enough people out there that feel it's wrong, that it's time to stop doing it. Maybe it's a cue to find more of the inspiration in my daily life, and use that more, so that there's never any question whether I have what I need come Thursday night when it's time to advertise Quaker meeting.

Warhol, by the way, was also careless about where he got his photos. One of the best examples was Marilyn. He would colorize (cartoon) them but forget where exactly they were from. He is my inspiration, because he caught what people need to see. But by these standards, he wasn't ethical either. That's ok. I can be both, inspirational and ethical. On my bucket list is a Quaker calendar, with First Day, Second Day, etc. but kandinskyinzed photos of Quaker meetings or other Quaker things, like maybe Naylor or Rufus Jones. Not sure how this would play out. But I have to get my ethics in order before I even start. That means sorting what I use for what, or perhaps just not taking the inspirational ones, when I'm not sure it's ok.