Part II. Results From the Reconstruction of an Image Description

Once the written descriptions of our chosen art works were handed out, each of us went to work reconstructing the image we were given. As we read and re-read we put media to paper and an image was reborn. In some cases not exactly the image the writer was hoping for, but nonetheless an image. It was fascinating to see the variations in each person’s reconstructed piece. There were a few images containing all the elements, but in total reversal of the actual piece, in a flip-flopped orientation. There were at least three that came so close I would have been able to pair them up with their companion piece, no problem at all. One of these was mine. Or so I thought at first glance.

I truly thought I had captured the description of my image, if only because of my approach to the problem. My first attempt, I sat and studied the painting and once I thought I had the image in my mind I left the room and wrote it down from memory. Writing down just the concrete parts of the image as I had remember them. During my second attempt I took what I had written from memory and compared it to the actual painting. Although pretty good for a first attempt I still needed to clear up the omissions and mistakes before going final. So I filled in the missing pieces and clarified some of the more obvious mistakes. One such mistake was a branch that split off from the main branch and doubled back into the center of the painting crossing in the front of the falcon. Also from memory I thought I had noticed some feathery down from the young falcon blowing in the breeze. That was totally out in left field, there was absolutely no sign of a breeze or wind of any kind whatsoever in the painting.

After correcting my memory omissions and mistakes, I began to elaborate on my perceived emotion from the painting, trying to, with words, pull out what I felt from viewing the painting. I remarked about the dominance of the boulders and their relationships to one another and to the diminutive size of the falcon in comparison. I pointed out the colors of the boulders, but omitted their color independence one from the other. Thereby leaving the reconstruction artist somewhat confused and in the outcome, all the colors were mixed together rather than being independent one from the other.

My depiction of the branch in the foreground was not quite as sound as I had thought it to be. Evidence of that was in the rendition of the artist’s omission of the top half of the branches climbing up the left side of the painting. I left out the fact that the main branch spilt into three secondary branches, on approximately the same horizontal axis where the falcon sat on his rocky ledge. Two of these branches continue to twist and climb upwards filling from the left side of the painting to the center, arching inward and toward the upper right, tickling the rocks with their spindly barren smaller off-shooting branches. None of these branches attempt to cover any part of the falcon. Although one of the smaller branches, reaching to the right and above the bird’s head, does aid in the visible formation in the shape of a “C”.

Although I mentioned the shadowing effect in the painting, I made no reference to the placement of the sun other than late afternoon. Again leaving the reconstruction artist without enough information for a more accurate placement of those shadows, which show up on the left side on the rocky formation behind the dead grayish-white branches in the foreground. One aspect of these shadows seem to indicate an overhang from an upper rocky formation not seen in the picture, but evident from the light and shadows. The strongest light was seen also in the same formation of the “C,” covering the top half of the branches, the top of the falcon on the right side of the painting. It was here that the individual colors of the rocks show up. There was also a shadow cast from the young falcon’s torso and slightly uplifted left wing, falling underneath the falcon to the left on the third branch that splits-off from the main branch that doubles back in the lower center of the painting crossing in front of the falcon.

My description of the immature falcon was also lacking enough facts for a more accurate rendering. His feathers were a bit more ruffled in the painting than I had indicated in my original description. I also forgot to mention, that the falcon was in a three quarters position facing the twisted branches on the left side of the painting. However, only after seeing the reconstruction artist’s rendering, did I think of a description that would more accurately portray his posture in the painting. I should have said that the falcon peered from under his wing in a Dracula-like pose from a seated sleeping position. His coloring was also more of a grayish-white though, the other artist shows him as predominately brown. I should have been more descriptive with the amounts and placements of the colors of the falcon. The black markings were more on the tips of the feathers about the head and shoulders indicating the age of the falcon. The shadowing on the falcon is also omitted from my original description again leaving the artist nothing to work with. I could have said that the falcon's shadows are shown from underneath his slightly lifted Dracula-like wing and that part of his lower underbelly that can be seen from his three quarters angle to the viewer. The light strikes the bird’s upper torso, back of his neck, head and outstretched wing.

Again this has been a very stimulating and eye opening exercise. One that has helped, from first hand experience, my understanding of the reasoning behind the expression, “One picture is worth a thousand words.” Depending on the complexity of the object of art, it should be considered that sometimes more than a thousand words might be necessary in order to bring that image back to life.

The Original Painting by A. Cialone is shown below:

The rendering of the reconstruction artist shown below:

Part One: Reconstruction of an Image Description

Earth tones dominate this vertical painting of an immature falcon. In the background there abounds large boulders of gentle grays, soft tans, muted pinks and very pale orangish-yellows. Each of these rocks struggles for dominance of position among its brothers. They appear to reach out in all directions from their individual magnificent size, indicating that they are part of a much larger formation. They are smooth and worn, but covered in striations, cracks and deep fissures. Giving away that this scene takes place in an area that has stood the test of time.

The shadows on these boulders are only ever so slightly noticeable with the exception of the deep fissures. The fissures reach back into the depths of their joining holding a special wonder of what might be contained behind them. In proportion to the young falcon these boulders loom over his small statue as if to say they will remain even after his departure. From the lighting used for the shadows there is a sense that this is a late fall afternoon and winter might be fast approaching.

Among these massive boulders there sits a young falcon, on the well-hidden stony ledge created by the joining of these boulders, just below center and to the right of the total image. From his three quarters vantage point he is hunched over and peering from under the feathers of his left wing, which is slightly raised out from his body as he inspects that which has aroused him from his moment of solitude. His look is somewhat intense, but shows no signs of fear, only irritation at being disturbed from his quite perch among the cliffs. His colors camouflage his existence quite nicely among the earthy tones of the boulders in the background. His feathered covering is predominately the same gentle grays, whites, soft tans with black markings. The black markings on his wings are probably the only evidence that he is actually there. The artist depicts this scene with a cold stillness through the lack of any noticeable wind or movement at all within the picture.

In the foreground a large dead grayish-white branch looms in front of the rock formation as well as the young falcon. Striped of its foliage, its form is twisted and its spindly smaller branches join the twisting and turning of the large branches as they reach upward. The large main branch enters the painting from the lower right corner and meanders slowly to the left and starts an upward stretching and twisting of its branches of various sizes toward the sky that the viewer knows is there but is unseen in this painting. One of the twisted branches doubles back toward the right side of the painting and crosses in front of the young falcon breaking the complete form of the bird’s frame and allowing its tail to peek over the edge of the cliff where the falcon sits.

The Artist's Statement

The Box contains what I believe Lawrence Lessig’s book is trying to point out dealing with copyrights and intellectual property in our future. The shape is not necessarily significant, with the exception of the execution of the project. The color indicates the purity of the original reason behind copyrights and intellectual property. The words placed on the box are from Lawrence Lessig’s book, Free Culture. Their random selection, placement and arrangement represent the lack of regard for Lessig’s words from corporate America. I believe they truly can not see, or do not wish to see, what they will ultimately do with their repeated extensions of copyrights. They can only see these extensions as a means of control and power, which translates into more money (for them). The cutting up of the random pages from Lessig’s book shows the words are there, the logic is there, but we see only bits and pieces of the reasoning behind what Lessig is trying to point out. In short, humanity is not able or choose not to be able to see the "Big Picture".

Once the viewer looks into the box, the reality of what is bound to happen comes in to view. The Copyright repeats and repeats and repeats itself until public domain is no longer an option from which to create. This once again shows how something that was good and well intention at its creation is now being abused and is not working for the good of “ALL,” but only for the good of a “FEW”.

Now we look at the doctrine of "Fair Use" within copyright law. To determine if; my project for this class would be in violation of "Fair Use" laws, had Lawrence Lessig NOT waived part of his copyrights and allowed a remixing of his book? To grasp an understanding of that part of copyright law which defines "Fair Use," I have cited this statement from the website indicated below:

...Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney... (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Had Lessig NOT given others permission to remix his book, then I would say yes, I am in violation of "Fair Use" laws. However, is Lessig being as clever as a fox? By waiving parts of his copyright is he facilitating the spread of his point of view to the public of the possibility of an oncoming catastrophy in the future? Only time will tell.