re: #254 Charles

Nothing was “stolen.”

Well, speaking from an artist’s perspective, unless it is stated that it is a “variation” of another artist’s work in the title of the work, or in the artists statement, it’s, let’s say, “borrowed”. Artists make references to other works, especially dead artists, all the time. It’s the job of an art critic to be literate enough to point that out and discuss it intelligently.

Personally, I don’t see anything new brought to the table by the new artist. So, for me, it’s “stolen” because it is a blatant reference without any substantial new artistic contribution on the artist’s part. Simply changing the colors around does not make it worthy as a “variation on a theme”. If he had changed it enough to make it his own, or to add a new aesthetic style or perspective, then I would call it a valid reference. But the artist didn’t do that.