A Los Angeles artist is planning to display uncensored nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Scarlett Johansson and other celebrities whose intimate images were recently stolen and then posted online.
The exhibition by the artist known as XVALA will start Oct. 30 at the Cory Allen Contemporary Art “Showroom” in St. Petersburg, Florida, the gallery announced this week.
Excuse me? You can’t “display” stolen photographs. They’re stolen.
It’s like buying a fenced Rembrandt stolen from the Rijksmuseum and then announcing plans to display it in an exhibition in a few weeks. The cops will be the first in line on opening day.
The show could test the boundaries between art and privacy, freedom of speech and content ownership. Lawrence, for one, warned in a statement that authorities …
… will prosecute anyone who posts the stolen photos …
The hack was being investigated by the FBI.
XVALA told us, “I hope we don’t need an attorney.” But he said he definitely plans to move forward with the exhibition, with the backing of the gallery.
It’s like breaking into your neighbor’s house and then announcing plans to “display” the stolen goods in a yard sale.
The photos were stolen.
The gallery is helping itself to someone else’s stolen photos. Its “backing” is the backing of a thief.
“I’m taking them off the internet and putting them into a new medium that is transformative,” he said. “I’ll be using them as commentary.”
The artist says he hasn’t entirely decided yet which pilfered images he’ll display, but that Lawrence’s and Johansson’s are shoo-ins because both women have admitted that the photos are theirs.
You can’t just “take” whatever you want off the internet. The fact that it’s on the internet doesn’t mean you can just help yourself to it. It’s not the free box at a garage sale.
Lawrence has said (why “admitted”? she didn’t do anything wrong) the photos are hers, and that they were stolen. This XVALA schmuck is planning to display Lawrence’s photos that are not his to display and that she doesn’t want displayed and that are stolen.
The art show is titled “No Delete,” and it’s part of an ongoing “Fear Google”-themed series that showcases “the artist’s seven-year collection of images found on Google of celebrities in their most vulnerable and private moments,” according to a statement from the gallery:
In 2011, XVALA posted the leaked nude images of actress Scarlett Johansson throughout the streets in Los Angeles with “Fear Google” logo covering her intimate areas.
The photos from that collection were snapped by paparazzi or stolen by hackers, XVALA acknowledges, and that’s part of his point…
Oh, that’s just fucking disgusting. It’s just one more way someone has found to degrade women and ignore their explicit strongly-stated wishes. Fuck his “point”; he’s making it with photos that belong to other people who don’t want them used. What a pig.
If I were an artist and wanted to make an artistic statement about these stolen photos I would:
1) Change them in some way to remove the nudity, while making a statement against the theft
2) Consult with the people involved, and not use their images at all if they didn’t approve
3) Donate any proceeds to charities chosen by the people whose images I would be using in my art
Most anything else would be exploitation, and ethically bankrupt.
Next, XVALA plans an exhibit called FEAR THE FERGUSON PD displaying the embalmed bodies of unarmed black pedestrians he has killed himself.
If I were an artist I would use material that was original, perhaps photographs of paid models maybe? Who had signed something called a “release” for them to be displayed in public.
It’s not “edgy” when it is stolen. It is not edgy when it is the invasion of privacy.
Re-stealing to make a “point”about privacy is still theft.
I wonder how the artist would feel if someone, you know, broke into his apartment and photographed all his stuff and the contents of his refrigerator and maybe copied his email, and did an “art installation” about what a complete dipshit he is.
Except it’d be _wrong_.
It’s an awful lot like, “Would THIS be rape? OK, then how about THIS?” We know that it’s shitty behavior. Anyone who would elaborate secondary privacy violations in an effort to prove that they’re somehow different from the original privacy violation, and count as “protected speech,” is a piece of shit. And it makes him unfit for polite society (as it were). I for one would like to see his “exhibit” shut down, and himself forced to make some kind of restitution to the women victimized by this violation of their privacy.
Making the charge that “he’s a piece of shit, and this is just plain shitty,” precise enough to prosecute, could potentially be challenging: the pictures are morally “stolen,” but the artist’s copies were not physically stolen. They were “stolen” somewhat like bootleg MP3’s are “stolen,” except that unlike MP3s, these pictures were not made available by some alternative legitimate channel. The person who disseminated them had to first hack computer security, violate terms of service, and access these women’s data without authorization. That person committed several crimes, even if none of them is officially described as “theft.” But the “artist” never hacked any computer. And is REcopying something the same crime as copying it in the first place? Is a digital copy the same as “receiving stolen goods”? Because downloaders of stolen music are not considered guilty of receiving stolen goods: they are prosecuted not for that, but for transmitting further copies to others using file-sharing software.
I think someone who knows their stuff legally can nail this piece of shit to the wall, but it would be for copyright violation, not theft. IANAL, but I believe these women can assert copyright ownership of these photographs that (a) they took, (b) of themselves, without difficulty, and successfully sue him for infringing. They can probably make him take down or even dispose of his prints as “derivative works,” and can sue him for financial damages arising from the infringement–which will be minimal, because the law here isn’t about personal privacy at all, but about commercial value. Basically, they can sue for the money they lost by not receiving royalties or selling the picture themselves. Since that’s $0.00, the damage award is likely to be minimal.
What makes me feel conflicted is that I hope they do just that, and nail this POS hard–even though I really wish that this could have been prosecuted as a privacy violating crime instead of a commercial tort, and in fact I’m generally biased against much of patent and copyright law. If I had my druthers, this particular weapon wouldn’t be available, yet I’m glad that at least one weapon IS available.
Unless that commentary is that he’s an asshole I’m not sure what XVALA hopes to say with this.
Damn, the tickets are selling well
What is one supposed to think about the potential exhibition visitors?
I think it’s a very interesting and provocative idea. It certainly explores and pushes out the boundaries of a number of areas like personal property rights and privacy.
This exhibition makes us think about where we personally draw the line and notice that other people don’t draw that line in the same place. Isn’t that a primary purpose of art? To reflect our values and priorities back at us in different ways so we can consider where we want to go in the future. It has already started discussions and people are letting others know where they stand. That seems like a worthy art project to me.
I don’t think it’s very much like going into someone’s house and stealing or photographing their personal things then making an art exhibit out of it. I understand the analogy you’re trying to make, but the fact is that all human rights that we have are granted to us by the mutual consent of the individuals in our society. To physically intrude into someone else’s private space seems inherently different to me than the virtual intrusion of modern technology. Maybe I feel that way just because of my age. At any rate, it’s a common perception.
Certainly, our current society grants people those privacy rights. At the same time, photographers and publishers have been violating celebrities’ rights for decades. This doesn’t take that trend much farther, but it does seem to have sparked recognition that perhaps we should do more to sanction or stop those who violate other people’s rights in that way.
Beth, I’m trying to find a reason not to respond to your post with a suggestion to fuck off.
The questions you raise may be interesting questions, but you’re asking them across a table on which nude photos are spread out, taken without consent from an actual woman.
If you’re OK with pursuing these philosophical questions in just such a context, do you mind if we take Jennifer Lawrence off the table and replace them with nude photographs of yourself, taken without your consent? If you’re equally content pursuing this coffee talk when the only victim in view is yourself, then I guess I’d be willing to engage in that dialogue with you.
If on the other hand your Vulcan equanimity rests partly on the fact that the victim isn’t you or anyone you can empathize with, then I think I’d rather you just fuck off.
What Masked Avenger said.
Yes, I’m willing to consider that the pictures are of me although I don’t think I could participate in the discussion with equanimity if that actually was the case. I can understand if you aren’t interested in doing anymore than expressing your opinion and your anger that not everyone views it the same way. I’ll bow out of the discussion if that’s the case.
Wait. If you recognize that you probably couldn’t participate in the discussion with equanimity if the pictures were of you…then why can’t you extend that to other people?
I don’t understand that. You recognize that you would probably find it upsetting, so why are you so calm and indifferent about the known upset of someone who isn’t you? That’s the definition of callous. Are you intentionally presenting yourself as callous?
You’ve explained in the past that you take things literally, but I don’t see how that interferes with understanding that what upsets you will upset others and thus not treating things that will upset others as “a very interesting and provocative idea” with no other moral content.
I’m not treating it as if it had no moral content. It’s interesting and provocative precisely because it has moral content.
I can completely understand why someone doesn’t want to participate in such a discussion due to personal experience. There are certain subjects I don’t discuss for that reason. That is why I offered to bow out of the discussion. I think that makes me the opposite of callous. I’m not sure why you read it differently. I don’t think I’ve been mean or cruel in my comments. If I have, please let me know what I said that you interpreted that way.
With regard to the OP, you clearly have strong feelings about such actions being not just being morally wrong, but victimizing others. I agree with that stance in regard to those who originally stole the pictures and posted them on the internet. I’m not so sure about the art exhibition that was the subject of your post. I don’t understand why you don’t want to discuss it since you put up a blog post on the subject. I interpret that as opening a discussion, not closing it.
I do want to discuss it. But…what reads as your indifference to the (well-known) feelings of the women whose pictures have been stolen comes across as chilling. I don’t know how to explain this.
Beth,
First person stole the pictures. That was point one of victimizing the women whose pictures those were.
They published them online. That was point two of victimization.
Now someone else is using the same photos, spreading them further. People are going to come to a gallery to watch stolen nude photos of women who have never consented to those photos being made public.
I don’t understand what is unclear about this being another victimization.
You have a point about it being another victimization. But at some point, when an image is widely-enough viewed, I’m not sure the additional victimization over and above what has already occurred is sufficient to justify preventing the image from being used in a work of art.
Much of modern borrows freely from previous work. It has been difficult to work out appropriate compensation and what constitutes legal versus illegal usage for print and images. The morality of using someone else’s image or work without consent is even more difficult IMO. I’m wavering on whether an artist’s additional use of such a widely distributed image can be considered moral. Do you have any justification other than the harm of the additional victimization, which seems relatively trivial to me compared with what has already occurred? Is there another dimension I am missing?
Ophelia, I’m sorry you are disturbed by my posting style. If you wish, I will bow out of this conversation.
Would people make the same arguments about an exhibition of child pornography?
I know it’s chic to take a pile of horse shit and call it art, and I have opinions about that, but I’ll try not to turn this into a conversation about merits of different kinds of artistic expression.
But there are limits. When it comes to people in art the limit is, as in other things, at consent.
No matter how widely the images spread, each and every time someone views them, they are contributing to the victimization of the subjects of those photos. Did you look them up online? It doesn’t matter if you were the 100th or 1 000 000th person to see them. You’re another fly on that pile of horse shit. Congratulations.
The “artist” using them in their piece? They are much worse.
A major thing, besides adding to the general idea that celebrities’ bodies are public property, is that I don’t believe for a moment they are in it in order to make some kind of point. The controversy and naked celebrity boobs are where the money is.
Also, what robertbaden asked.
No, it’s not the opposite of callous…its’ the definition of callous. Let’s all have a provocative conversation about media using the stolen images of real humans with real feelings living with the real ramifications of their victimization….oh YEAH, nothing callous about that.
/sarcasm and a butt load of snark
To physically intrude into someone else’s private space seems inherently different to me than the virtual intrusion of modern technology. Maybe I feel that way just because of my age.
Or, it could be that you have a broken moral sense, or for some other reason feel privileged that it wouldn’t bother you or wouldn’t happen to you.
when an image is widely-enough viewed, I’m not sure the additional victimization over and above what has already occurred is sufficient to justify
I’ll have to go with “broken moral sense” per above, then. Here’s why:
If A victimizes B, and C, D, and E all decide to victimize B “because A did” then there’s not one person (A) that’s doing wrong. There are now four.
What you’re saying is that you’d rather live in a world where there are more victimizing assholes than fewer. Way to go.
TW: reference to serial (sexual) abuse.
Well, to be precise, what she seems to be saying is that after A, C, D and E have victimized B, it just doesn’t make that much difference if F decides to victimize B as well. The hundredth time just isn’t as serious as the first time.
What suddenly gives me pause is that I might expect to hear that sort of argument from a victim of prolonged abuse, such as a woman engaging against her will in sex work. “Eh, whatever–it’s not like it hasn’t happened a hundred times before.” It suddenly makes me wonder what is going on in Beth’s head. It doesn’t read like a normal human exhibiting normal empathy, which always throws me for a loop, but where I thought before that it might be sociopathy or just plain shittiness, I’m wondering now it it mightn’t be something else. I don’t know what. But I have a vague sense of worry for Beth.
Beth, BTW, that’s sort of how empathy works in most people. Having been disturbed by your lack of evident empathy, I find myself empathizing with your lack of empathy, and wondering if you might be yourself a victim in some way. If so, my expression of concern doesn’t make it any of my business, but I’d like to offer a general supportiveness.
Given Beth’s history here, they seem to have some kind of empathic or ethical disability. Personally, by this point I would have decided that I’m not their therapist and removed their commenting privileges, but this is not my blog.
In legal terms, he uses the words ‘transformative’ and ‘commentary’ very intentionally, because those are the key concepts separating derivation from valid works of art. This is an important loophole which allows new art to be made from the remains of the old, a critical element of artistic progress. If he can successfully persuade a court that the installation is a new thing, rather than just a recreation of an old thing, he may get away with it. Pretty sure he’s just looking for attention and profit though, which if anything probably makes this worse than the original theft.
As for people reacting the same way to child pornography, I am certain there are people who would make an argument for the artistic value of displaying such images. Not for the images themselves, but what they represent. I suspect there are fewer of those however, and none of them would claim that those children deserved it, for being so damned sexy.