We witness love everywhere we go and with everything we do. Whether it is a couple holding hands on a street corner, music that is sweet and romantic, or a piece of art that says “LOVE” sitting in the middle of our very own New York City. “LOVE,” created by Robert Indiana in 1967 during the Pop art movement, has been a blessing and a curse regarding the artist’s career and reputation. Explained in the article “An Artist’s LOVE-Hate Relationship” written by Jesse McKinley, “LOVE” has haunted Indiana because of the lack of respect for his work and overexposure of the piece.
Eighty-five year old Robert Indiana cannot help but feel like his piece of Pop Art has not been put in the proper light. “LOVE,” designed with a tilted O, was not correctly copyrighted and Indiana’s original design now has stretched from being translated to Chinese, to being used for the design on Converses. These places and products are not what Indiana had in mind for the piece of art, and was not able to voice if he wanted his work to be exposed on these things or not. As a result of the overexposure his creation, Indiana’s other pieces do not get a second look because people are not aware of the depth of his work past the infamous “LOVE.”
Mr. Indiana states “I’m sure all the people who have been born 20 years ago don’t know anything about me at all, except ‘LOVE.’” Unfortunately, it is safe to say his assumption is correct. He also adds that he did not like being identified under the Pop art movement. Do we really take a name like Pop art seriously? Are we so narrow-minded to forget that Robert Indiana’s “LOVE” is not just a one hit wonder in the world of art? Whitney Museum of American Art did not forget about Indiana’s collection. The museum is opening an exhibition retrospective of Indiana’s work called “Robert Indiana: Beyond LOVE.”
I am happy that Mr. Indiana is getting recognized for all of his work and not just his most mainstream piece. People identify with art every day whether they know it or not “LOVE” being an example of just that. People enjoy it splashed on their converse, drawing it in their notebooks, or taking a picture in front of it in NYC. However I can only hope that soon, our generation takes the next step after just identifying with art, but appreciating it as well. Robert Indiana created this piece and because of a copyrighting mistake, people took advantage of it and the depth of his work is forgotten.
Naturally, art was made a business for the people and companies that benefited from Indiana’s work. Does this mean that art overlaps with business? Is this ethical? Maybe Indiana should have been more careful so that his piece was given the respect it deserves. I believe that it was bound to happen that somebody made a profit on Indiana’s work especially with the copyright error. In my opinion, art overlaps with business more often than not because artists do need to make a profit and cannot just make art for fun if it is what they have chosen to do for a living.
McKinley, Jesse. “Robert Indiana Assumes One Work Has Swamped His Career.” New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.
I just don’t understand how you can copyright something as generic as “love.” He is definitely not the first to write the word in that manner. It was probably sketched in a thousand kid’s notebooks before he made it. Not to mention there is no real thought behind it. It kind of reminds me of the ridiculous copyrights that Mcdonald’s and Nike posses. “I’m Lovin’ it” and “just do it.” Those are two very generic phrases. It’s pretty ridiculous that they can be copyrighted. Although, I am happy for Indiana, at least he got some media attention for his new art pieces from it. I think stories like Indiana’s make the art community and the practice of selling art to make a living look like a joke.
Wow this is completely what we spoke about in class this week. Props Jackie for finding something so similar. Was Indiana the first one to make that logo or the first one to make it a statement piece? I actually have never seen that artwork. It’s so typical in my mind but from the 60’s I can see it being such a statement piece. Nick do you really think love or I’m lovin it was typical back then. We grew up in the 90’s this was around way before we even have our first memories. It was typical piece in all our memories backgrounds.
I feel back for Indiana. Imagine a piece of art that you worked on for years and years that had your name on it was turned into a logo on a trashy forever 21 tank top. Would you want your art remembered that way?
If there was anything I have learned this year it would have to be the fact that anything can be thought of in a deep meaningful way. “LOVE,” with a tilted O could show that every love is different and can be looked at in different perspectives. Straight or tilted its still love.
If Indiana had been more “careful” about how he created his art, he wouldn’t be making art that he can purely call his own. It wouldn’t be art for the sake of art, but rather art for the sake of profits. While your arguments do make sense from the business perspective, I feel like there are definitely two types of arts. What you’re claiming is that, from how I take it, art will inevitably be used to make profits.
I disagree with that. Sure, killing two birds with one stone is good, as the saying goes – it’s always better to create what you want and have society pay for it because they like it than to create what you want and not have society like it. But that’s not always the case. There are many artists that work for a living but their works don’t sell.
After reading this post, I find the connection between business and art even stronger than I had originally thought. I never thought about the connection with respect to copyright’s and ideas. I only thought about artists making a living by being artists and selling their work in order to make money. The whole copyright idea and how it still applies to art never crossed my mind. Artists now have to copyright their art. If they do not, in addition to others taking advantage of their art and making money off it, the art will not be perceived as the original artist wanted. Like Indiana’s LOVE art, it has now been desecrated through the business world. As much as he wanted to keep the deeper meaning of his art, the business world did not allow it.
Interesting article! Although Indiana had different intentions for his artwork LOVE, he cannot change the way the public views it. One of the purposes of art is for it to be interpreted any way that the artwork speaks to the audience. I do feel sympathetic towards Indiana because to be honest, I am one of those people who didn’t know he had any other artworks due to LOVE being the most infamous one. Nonetheless, it is great to see the Whitney Museum of American Art take action to make Indiana known for more than LOVE.
I think that this article does show the connection between the art world and the business world. It is a shame to see Indiana’s artwork be exploited for company’s, such as Converse, own gain. Sure Indiana got recognition, but too much exposure of LOVE turned Indiana a disregarded artist.
I thought this was really interesting because you talked about copyright issues regarding art, but also how business and art connected (which we talked about in class). Regarding Indiana and his artwork LOVE, I agree that people don’t take that art piece as serious as he would like. Being labeled as “pop art” has definitely hurt his artwork, because as you said we don’t really take that kind of art seriously. It’s sort of like “pop music” or crazy videos, which we (or at least I) lump together and associate it as adolescent and temporary (fame-wise). Indiana’s situation kind of reminds me of a “one hit wonder” situation, where he has “one hit” and then suddenly disappear. However. I think it’s nice that Indiana is trying to not be a “one art piece wonder” and that he’s getting more recognition. He seems like a nice and sincere artist who takes pride in his work. It’s nice to see artists like him become more well known.
To respond to your question about the relationship between art and business, I agree with you that it is inevitable for art to recieve credit through money profit. Many artists throughout history have tried to make art just for the sake of art- no profits, no fame. But others use their art as a source of income, and most of them do nowadays. I do not think that how artists choose to use art as a profit as unethical because they are just adapting to present needs. They are doing anything morally wrong art. As for the case of Indiana, the copyright of his LOVE work was violated and taken to a different dimension by other producers without his permission. That is not ethical because these companies took advantage of his work without his consent and used it for another purpose.
Really interesting, I never would have thought to associate art with a copyright and that it would cost an artist his reputation. I am also happy to hear that Mr. Indiana is going to get his recognition beyond the “LOVE” sculpture that we all know to well. I think art is deep-rooted in business but I don’t think its acceptable to exploit an artist for a copyright mistake. Are businesses that desperate to be cool, that when something becomes popular they copy it? I think part of the beauty of Indiana’s piece has been lost because of how wide spread it has become, and that saddens me.