My new Carr :)

You did it, then?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Come on he ripped off DeFrancisci's design . It's a blatant copy with the dies engraved by a CNC machine .

 

Haha, I was friends with Alyssa's brother Cory growing up. Haven't seen him (or her) since around 2000 though

 

No, he used a pre existing design, with a fantasy date, and created a beautiful token. Different outlook-- not dwelling on negative aspects, but seeing that is a beautiful issuance.

 

The designs, David...

If I took a painting, say, by Vermeer and used computers and machinery to replicate it, changing only certain details, would it be my "work"? Perhaps, if I used my own hands and god-given talent to painstakingly copy it, over months to years, the case could rightfully be made. Otherwise, it's just copying someone else's work.

 

The same can be said of the Chinese copies that have a wrong date on them , or is that ok too .

 

You guys are looking at it all wrong. His overstrikes are more like the guys gluing Santa or bill Clinton or whoever on a $1 bill and selling it for $10... Just way more sophisticated

 

Absolutely--it would be your interpretation of Vermeer's work. Copies of art work are done all the time, and some of them are excellent--just as Daniel Carr's overstrike fantasy coins are. As long as they aren't represented as the original US issue Peace Dollar, I think they have artistic merit and certainly numismatic collectible interest on their own. There is no comparison to Chinese replicas, as no artistry is involved, and the intent of those are to deceive, as they are legitimate US issue dates, and are sold to unsuspecting collectors. As a Daniel Carr collector, I am sure that my colleagues who appreciate his work are well aware of the design origin, and have read the disclaimer that they don't represent themselves as US coinage, and legal tender.

 

So... is she single?

 

I dunno. I don't really follow that stuff

 

For it to be an interpretation of Vermeer's work one would have to change it to make it their own . Like changing it to an abstract or surrealistic work that reflects the artist . If you copy it stroke for stroke it's just a copy . Sure it can be beautiful , but it will always remain a copy which are usually done by students trying to learn a particular style , or for practice .

 

In 2010 this Andy Warhol painting sold for more than 9 million dollars:

 

You claimed that I was "stealing the legacy" of the original coin's designer by over-striking it. I pointed out that you had previously made a favorable comment about an Indian Head Cent or nickel that had been "hobo" carved to look like a non-native American (Caucasian).

My point was not intended to claim any "race" aspect. My point was to point out that, if anything, "hobo" coin carving is a far more severe form of "stealing the legacy" than over-striking with a design which is faithful to the original.

 

I'm willing to bet if Warhol only painted that one picture , he would be an unknown painter now , but he started painting in his own style hundreds if not thousands of original works . Picking out just one of his paintings especially this one proves what ?

 

I do appreciate the clarification, but had that been your only intent, you easily could've said as much. There was no other reason to inject "Caucasian" and "Native American" into the post. It was entirely unnecessary, and the same point could've been made without them.

With that said, yes... I do believe you're stealing the original designer's legacies, and for the sole reason that you, unless I've missed it, refuse to admit the obvious... that the designs are copied. I can certainly understand why you don't, but that doesn't take away from the fact of the matter.

 

Whenever one of these types of threads pops up, I think of it as an extended form of performance art ("PA"). PA can take many forms, such as Boggs who hand-drew examples of US currency and then the "performance" part was attempting to get a person to accept his "work of art" at face value. Today, such "Boggs Bills" typically sell for amounts far greater than the face values. "Art" often involves bending or breaking the rules. Another PA example of a different sort was Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" (from Wikipedia):

"Fountain is a 1917 work produced by Marcel Duchamp. The piece was a porcelain urinal, which was signed "R.Mutt" and titled Fountain. Submitted for the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, in 1917, the first annual exhibition by the Society to be staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York, Fountain was rejected by the committee, even though the rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee. Fountain was displayed and photographed at Alfred Stieglitz's studio, and the photo published in The Blind Man, but the original has been lost. The work is regarded by art historians and theorists of the avant-garde, such as Peter Bürger, as a major landmark in 20th-century art."

 

The subject of the painting is NOT Warhol's design at all. But it is still considered an iconic work of modern art.

 

I included the reference to "Native American" and "Caucasian" because that aspect seemed (to me) to make it more egregious a case of "robbing the legacy" than it would have been if, for example, only the headdress was changed. So My intent was highlighting the severity of the design change on "hobo" carved coins.

PS:
Personally, I do not disapprove of coin carving, "hobo" or otherwise. Many of them are very interesting works of art. I even did one myself once:

 

If one were "stealing the design" in creative matters, every single movie ever made would be theft. They are all based on a pre-existing design---a book or play. Likewise, all operas are theft using this logic, as they have a libretto. Same logic would apply to most art, most definitely photography. Since one did not create the scene themselves, it would be considered derivative?? Using that approach, just about any creative undertaking would be "theft,"given that most creations are inspired either partially or DIRECTLy from an original source. Does that render them "theft," or creatively inspired? I would go with Daniel's analogy of the Campbell's Soup can as a good archetypal example of creativity in action--he parlayed an existing object into something different, and founded a new medium for expression. I see nothing different in Daniel Carr's process, and in no way could I compare him to a "cheap counterfeiter" Remember, those of you who know my tastes in coins--I was skeptical of his work, and originally was likewise critical, until I RECEIVED THE ITEMS in hand. That immediately changed my mind to be a supporter of his work, as the artistry was immediately apparent, and it was NOT a cheap copy or fake--it was artistic expression. Once again, for the umpteenth time, it is not counterfeiting--it is creating a token, and those have plenty of artistic license.