Artist Jose Maria Cano copies Wall street journal staff illustrator’s work and claims it as his own.

Artist Jose Maria Cano copies Wall street journal staff illustrator’s work and claims it as his own.

Its the most blatant act of copying i have ever seen. I would not think that any gallery would want to touch this with a bargepole. He has actually copied Noli Novaks work dot for dot and then claimed it for his own. Novak is well known for doing a lot of the “Hedcut” stipple portraits in the journal.
José-María Cano’s set of images are called “The Wall Street 100″ collection. “taking” newspaper cuttings from the Wall Street Journal, the exhibits 100 large wax portraits depict people the artist deems are socio-politically powerful.

Spot the difference

Spot the difference

His work is on sale at the Riflemaker gallery in London now:

Oh the irony!

He talks about the Financial industry “doing nothing” as part of his motivation.

Quote:
“The artist has a problem with those who get rich speculating. In his view, they “do nothing” besides shifting money at their computer, and are “creating billions — from where? From what?”
From this article:Bloomberg

From where? From what? is a good question Mr Cano.

Novak holding original artwork

Novak holding original artwork

You can get more details from her blog here:
http://hedcuts.blogspot.com/

18 comments

  • I read the blog posts about this and it is a terrible thing. Having her drawings blown up and copied in another medium is unfair and unethical.

    For the people who say that Cano is put in a lot of work to make these copies: Without the excellent illustrations he is working from, he’d be left making random blobs on canvas. The copying of the dots in the illustration is not equivalent to making a portrait. The customers are buying them as portraits, not blobs on canvas.

  • I’d love this and appreciate this dude as an artist and a thoughtful person if he’d taken the highly recognizable style and done his own portraits of all these people. How hard is it to find a free use picture of Obama or any of these other people? But dude can’t make these portraits because it takes skill to translate the raw photo into a unique portrait. Boo.

  • If you had posted the uncropped art that Cano rather than this cropped version does you would see that his work is parody based on the actual wall street journal clippings. He has made one hundred of these and the actual artwork (not the one you are showing in its cropped out form) has bits of the newspaper text around it. Please do better research on this sort of thing and find both the hedcut and the full painting, this post breaks your own suggested guidelines I found here:

    “Please check that it not the case before posting.

    Often reasons why you may have ’seen it before’ please check that your post that it doesn’t come under the following:

    Parodies: intentional copies mocking the original
    Same Influences/Inspirations: If someone was inspired by “a plane hitting a building” to create art you can’t stop anyone else from having the same inspiration.
    Style: You can’t really own a style. These ones may be judge case by case. post and let the readers decide.
    Artist Vs Artist stuff is just so bitchy, I would much rather see artist vs company issues posted here

  • Anyone read what really happened? There are articles and interviews with both artists. This post is not true. Cano did not claim these as his own and is not trying to pass all 100 of these appropriations from the WSJ as his own. The whole point of his conceptual work is that the viewer should immediately recognize these paintings as being copied from clippings from the newspaper. This article does not show what the full paintings look like they are surrounded by the text that appeared around the spot illustrations. He is claiming these not as his own but as bits of the wall street journal. Novak and the other 10 or more staff illustrators whose drawings were included in the wall street100 at Riflemaker do not own these drawings either. These were part of the daily paper that Cano clipped out. The drawings all match each other and were carried out by salaried employees on the company dime and those employees were paid hourly to draw in the style specified by the paper and tracing over photos supplied by the newspaper. These are specifically supposed to be copies of the illustrations and text from The Wall Street Journal. That is the entire point of the series. Cano is not trying to put one over on anyone or claim them as his own. If that was the case he’d have to be the biggest moron in the world to decide to include the surrounding newspaper text. Duh.

  • Jackelhide- Ok now i see, your right. They really arent copies then.

  • Ha ha! A PARODY! Well, okay then. I’ll recreate all of the works of my favorite artists, and when I get busted I’ll get some mushmouth to say it was all a parody! HOME FREE! And I’ll never have to work to be original ever again! Excellent!

  • ignoranceisbliss

    Oh, I did not realize that The Wall Street Journal was someone’s favorite artist. Cano recreated 100 clippings from the wall street journal complete with surrounding snippets of text. He reproduced the spot illustrations as part of these clippings. The spot illustrations are done by a number of production artists. Do you mean that the production artists are Cano’s favorite artists? What part of this do you not understand? The photos on this blog are very misleading because Cano’s version has been cropped to just show the recreation of one of the drawings, not the entire work of art he makes which are faithful repoductions carried out in wax of clippings from the newspaper. His previous work consisted of faithful reproductions carried out in wax of legal documents he’d recieved. He did not get BUSTED, wtf, his whole intent was for these works to be recognized as clippings from the wsj. Why else do you think he left the surrounding newspaper text in? Please answer this last question Abe.

  • Oh, I did not realize that The Wall Street Journal was someone’s favorite artist. Cano recreated 100 clippings from the wall street journal complete with surrounding snippets of text. He reproduced the spot illustrations as part of these clippings. The spot illustrations are done by a number of production artists. Do you mean that the production artists are Cano’s favorite artists? What part of this do you not understand? The photos on this blog are very misleading because Cano’s version has been cropped to just show the recreation of one of the drawings, not the entire work of art he makes which are faithful repoductions carried out in wax of clippings from the newspaper. His previous work consisted of faithful reproductions carried out in wax of legal documents he’d recieved. He did not get BUSTED, wtf, his whole intent was for these works to be recognized as clippings from the wsj. Why else do you think he left the surrounding newspaper text in? Please answer this last question Abe.

  • no one bitched when Warhol “stole” campbells soup labels and recreated them using a screen printing process. It was “Art”. there are millions of examples of artists doing this.

    This guys sells his work as “art”. If you repaint the mona lisa in hamburger toppings, im sure you can sell that to a museum and no one would complain. It wasnt your idea, but its your spin or take on it. So yes, feel free to recreate any painting you please and give tribute to the original artist, as this artist clearly did. who knows, maybe your will even make money at it and follow in the footsteps of so many famous and rich artists before you.

  • Yes, Warhol “stole” from Campbell’s just the same as when Van Gogh painted sunflowers he was “stealing” from them… I can see we’re dealing with the smartest of the smart here.

    Some of you people are just idiots, plain and simple. You’re the same sort that regularly reply to plainly traced images on here with “Good artists copy, great artists steal. – Picasso.”

  • Duchamp did this as a means of protest; his aim was not to plagiarize, yet somewhere down the line, people believed his work to set a precedent that made it ok to plagiarize and call it their own when they lacked the skill to create something original.

  • Anonymous, learn some art history, just a little please. Duchamp did not place his urinal in a gallery as a means of protest, his was a conceptual act meant to provoke consideration of of what can be considered art, what is original, and how context determines whether we view a given object as a work of art or not. As to the charge of plagiarism, the artist has set about to specifically reproduce clippings from the WSJ, surrounding text (not pictured in the cropped image accompanying this article) and even went so far as to include the only initials in the series on one illustration. This is not plagiarism, it’s directly copying bits of generic pop culture. Whether it’s great art or not, who knows. It looks boring as tiny jpgs online but the huge wax reproductions might be very effective in person. Art for the most part is not meant to be seen in only in reproductions, unlike newspaper graphics. If Cano was “stealing” from anyone it’s the company, not the production workers which include spot illustrators, typesetters, editors, and so on. Those workers are compensated and it’s odd to think that any one of these workers who are paid to carry out graphics work according to precise company specs and oversight, using a style specific to the company and their fellow colleagues, and using a photograph that has been sourced and dictated by the company would consider the results of this labor somehow more original than Cano’s appropriation of it. That takes extreme cognitive dissonance not to mention an overweening ego. I went to Novaks site, her art work consists of tracing over photographs in the wall street journal’s set stipple style. Yes, she also makes collages out of torn magazine paper but that is hardly original either- being that they are composed on top of photos as well, not to mention the fact that making paper collages from photographic research is a typical senior high school art class assignment that I have given students of mine for years. For that matter, when they have turned in work that was composed directly on top of their reference materials that has always merited a “D”. So let’s agree there’s nothing original in either artist’s work.

  • “Yes, Warhol “stole” from Campbell’s just the same as when Van Gogh painted sunflowers he was “stealing” from them…”

    I guess I’m not fully understanding your incomplete sentence. Who is “them” that Van Gogh is stealing from?…the sunflowers?…Campbell’s Soup? Your comparison not only makes zero sense but you come off sounding a bit retarded.

    Please reevaluate your statement and resubmit it. Proper grammar/spelling is of course not a necessity as i too have trouble in those departments, but complete sentences would help us better understand your point, weak as it is.

  • This has already been covered elsewhere better with the full story. Conclusion clearly not plagiarism but obvious satire and appropriation. Techdirt had it weeks ago here:http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/0309256527.shtml

  • Thank you juneBugg. You know, it’s interesting how a fixed perspective — in this case, “If it shows someone else’s original artwork, it’s plagiarism no matter what the circumstances” — makes even the clearest form of reference and allusion seem criminal. I suppose soon we’ll be hearing about how Tina Fey has “infringed upon the identity” of Sarah Palin, as a result of this newly defined violation.

    Another comment: Arguing that Duchamp’s work is protest — or is not protest — would be valid positions. Perfectly sound, legitimate points of view. Ripe for a college art or civics class.

    However, derriduh, you begin your lengthy post by describing Duchamp, in many more words, as a “conceptual artist” who wanted to “provoke consideration” of what defines a “work of art.”

    I believe that provocation and the challenging of rigid definitions — which are activities you say Duchamp participated in — are forms of protest. I would argue that your description could serve as a definition of what an artistic “protest” is.

  • swink, I agree with you to some extent, and certainly that “protest or not protest” is the stuff of art seminars, but I’ll maintain the position that Duchamp’s main interest in presenting his Urinal was not as a form of protest but rather primarily as institutional critique. We’re probably in full agreement but this comes down to semantics. My comment was made in frustration and directed at Anonymous and his or her intellectually simplistic interpretation of of art history and his or her complete inability to figure out the difference between plagiarism and appropriation.
    As for anyone who thinks this is anything other than clearly attributed appropriation carried out with intent that this work should be immediately recognizable as a recreation of torn bits of a famous daily conservative business newspaper, all I can say is there’s probably no hope for them since their brains appear to be made of teflon.

  • I might be pissed off about this if I was Novak and not getting the attention a so called real artist is, but anyone with half a brain can see this is not a rip off.

  • Doreen ,the artist might be pissed. But anyone with a half brain
    Knows it’s not plagiarism? Are you referring to yourself as s half brain when you acknowledge novaks anger at being angry.for being ripped off?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*