If I were to chart out the reader feedback activity since starting this blogsperiment, I'd conclude that a topic especially near and dear to your hearts is rejection. You put the time, labor, love, and ego out there to create something that more often than not, gathers little more than classroom critique and/or half a dozen rejection letters, most of which you've paid somewhere between $25 and $75 to receive. Damn straight you'd better keep those. Frame 'em, wallpaper with them, or at the very least, make some type of bitter art/drinking/fiery Youtube video. In the meanwhile, accept this cute dog as a token of my understanding.
But every now and then, it all comes together and you get accepted. If it's a real-life actual physical world show though, there's more labor (and expense) ahead. Printing, framing, and shipping aren't especially cheap, easy, or quick. But still, this is offset by the satisfaction of the acceptance, right? We wouldn't subject ourselves to it otherwise, would we? But you know what's nice? When galleries post a few installation shots or mention the reception in a blog or a newsletter. For those participating artists who can't be there in person (most of them), it's nice to have that verification that your work actually hung on a wall in a room and that strangers drank wine and nibbled carrots nearby (remind me to post again in the future about depressing openings- I've had a few).
So yesterday I thought to look up the Toledo Friends of Photography show that I was excited to have a picture in. There I found a long list of participating artists, including myself:
Consider me a victim of my own sloppy handwriting. Now you know why I type this blog rather than writing it out.
But, aside from that, the site has this message posted below the list of names:
We are unable to post the images of the winning entries because a number of the artists were concerned about copyright protection. To satisfy all participants we are displaying no photographs on this site. We are sorry for any inconvenience. Please visit the exhibition at the Center for Visual Arts.
Perhaps these concerned artists read the recent Washington Post article William Greiner linked to about corporations such as Fox nabbing photos of cute Christmas dogs and are worried of similar violations? Can someone set me straight on what the danger of posting images that each photographer probably already has up on a website could possibly be? What am I missing here? Is this concern valid?
*please, note, this is Truman, the cute Christmas dog owned and photographed by Tracey Gaughran-Perez. Gaughran-Perez posted this image on her blog and later saw her dog appearing on a Fox promo advertising their football coverage. Of course, posting this here & now makes me wonder if this type of blog use, that is my using this image here, falls within the scope of "scholarship" considered acceptable under "Fair Use"? Does it? Am I a thieving asshole too?