I got an email message tonight concerning my use of Grant Wood’s painting American Gothic on some of my products in my cafe press store…
apparently, my store is on “hold” , or, the products in my store are on hold until the issue is settled.
(Though… I still see them… do you?)
American Gothic was painted in 1930. I checked into the copyright issues when I decided to play with the image, and I found that paintings created between 1923 and 1963 were copyrighted for 28 years, and could be renewed for an additional 67 years. That would put the image into copyright until 2026. However, because I had seen so many representations of the image over the years, I assumed (Yeah I know the rule about assumptions) that it was fairly safe for me to play with it. I chose the image specifically because it was an American icon, and spoke about American made work… something I care deeply about… ( as opposed to chinese knock-offs etc..) Also… it had 3 “mandrels” I could stick beads on. 
As an artist, I don’t want to infringe on another artist’s work either, so I guess it’s time to take the image down. It makes me sad, because I really loved having the image as my website‘s front page.
I did, in my research, find an interesting article about the painting and it’s copyright HERE
I essentially agree with the ideas that the author presents….. ie: iconic image becoming culture, and secretly want to push the envelope and see how long I can hold onto the image on my website (probably forever) but I have to respect the law, as unfortunate as it feels…. I think Grant Wood may have gotten a kick out of another artist being inspired by his image
What do you think?
Should an artist’s work inspire spin-offs? Do you like seeing a play on iconic imagery? or Do you think it lessens the original piece?
I know I could be possibly open a can of worms here…. we (as glass artists) have had heavy arguments about copying, but I’m talking about years later here…. not copying while the artists is still alive.
Thoughts?
(I’m adding my image here just for reference…. it will be removed soon, but I’d like your feedback)
I’m adding an excerpt from the article at copyrighteous here for reference…
“We can think of culture as a set of shared values and references that help us related to each other and to communicate. Just like idioms in language, culture helps us communicate more effectively, certainly, but also lets us communicate messages that would not be communicable otherwise. When Out Magazine, Coors, or any of several dozen others replace the figures in American Gothic with a gay or lesbian couple, they are succinctly sending a message about homosexual relationships and American traditional values that could not be made any other way. In this way, American Gothic — both the painting and Biel’s book — represent a strong argument for free culture.
If American Society has infused American Gothic with so much value, how can it be fair to let one person or organization own it? Are they not owning an essential mode through which a society can relate, experience, and communicate? I can’t help but conclude that it shouldn’t matter if VAGA does not like alcohol, advertisements, homosexuality, or wants to make a some money every time someone makes a cartoon parody. These are trivial concerns next to the importance of our society’s need to communicate about these issues. If doing so requires the use of a shared cultural reference in VAGA’s painting, I find it hard to justify VAGA’s position of control.
We need to be able to reproduce and reimagine American Gothic because it has become part of us. It’s a striking example of the way that art becomes culture and the reason that truly free culture is the only appropriate response. We can’t afford to let our experience of the world and each other — to let ourselves at a very fundamental level — be owned and controlled.“
Thanks for taking the time to read,
-Jen
