#inform-video-player-1 .inform-embed { margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 20px; }

#inform-video-player-2 .inform-embed { margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 20px; }

PELLA — Central College students Rebekah Cashen and Gloria Montiel, both class of 2023, were recently recognized for their submissions in the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese higher education photo contest.

Cashen, a Spanish secondary education major, won first place in the Places Category with her photograph titled “Ventanas de la Alhambra.” Her photo was submitted to the AATSP by Allison Krogstad, professor of Spanish.

Montiel, a Spanish and communication studies double major, was awarded an honorable mention in the People Category with her piece titled “Saguaro de sabiduria.” Kathleen Korcheck, professor of Spanish, submitted this photo.

View other photos and read more about the contest results at AATSP.

#inform-video-player-3 .inform-embed { margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 20px; }

National Geographic photographer Kiliii Yüyan told Insider’s Joey Hadden that one way to improve nature photos is by including something in the foreground of a shot.

“Great backgrounds, such as mountains or waterfalls, are easy to find because we’re always looking for them,” Yüyan said. “On the other hand, a good foreground subject, such as blooming wildflowers or a craggy tree, can be much harder to find in the right location.”

Yüyan recommended searching for a foreground subject and framing your shot so you can see the scenery in the distance.

“It’ll give your images depth, intimacy, and make your photos unique,” he said.

I went through some of my photos, and found one I took of the Château de Commarque in France. It has a stream and tree in the foreground and a castle in the background:

Through The Lens spotlights emerging and established photographers from around the world. The ongoing series is dedicated to offering unique insights in varying areas of photographic expertise including portrait, landscape, fine art, fashion, documentary and more.

Chiang Yu-yi, better known by her professional persona John Yuyi, embodies the spirit of the post-Internet generation, where her artistic pursuits are deeply influenced by this era. Before establishing herself as an artist and photographer, Yuyi captivated digital audiences as a fashion influencer, showcasing her distinctive style on social media. However, it was her quest for a fresh creative outlet that truly transformed her path. During her travels between Taiwan and New York in 2015, Yuyi sought a more permanent presence in the latter city, leading her to sell temporary tattoos online as a means to fund her artist visa application. Starting with her own illustrations and later incorporating photographs from her swimwear collection, Yuyi’s tattoo designs evolved into conceptual expressions, featuring symbols of the social media landscape. Her tattoos and accompanying images gained widespread acclaim, establishing her as a prominent figure in the art world.

Yuyi’s artistic exploration extends to the human body, considering it both as a canvas for expression and a subject of inquiry. Her temporary tattoos have undergone various intriguing iterations, including unconventional placements on raw meat cuts and the incorporation of dating app profiles on human skin, revealing the masks we wear to present ourselves. Magazine commissions have played a significant role in shaping her projects, with her images transferred onto everyday objects like lipsticks, cigarettes, and knives, highlighting the commodification of the human form.

“I believe everything we see shapes and influences our personalities.”

Consumer culture has remained a recurring theme in Yuyi’s career, from her early tattoo-selling venture to the array of products adorned with her imaginative artwork in her online store. Known for their accessibility and playful nature, her creations exude a vibrant ethos. Notably, her action figure, inspired by her amusing project in airplane lavatories, showcases her wit and ability to evoke amusement.”I often choose objects from everyday life that people can relate to, such as items you’d find in a dollar store or ones commonly used by average individuals. Consumerism and commercialism play a role in my work because I believe everything we see shapes and influences our personalities. Advertisements and influencers impact us, and I aim to explore those influences and their effects through my art,” said Yuyi to Hypeart

In a notable collaboration, Yuyi partnered with THE SKATEROOM to create skateboard art editions, influenced by image-based aesthetics and the technological landscapes of the digital era, reflecting the profound impact of these forces on human connections and the universal longing for belonging.

For our latest Through the Lens feature, we synced with Yuyi over a late night FaceTime chat to discuss her personal worldview, her photography practice that challenges societal norms, and her ongoing artistic journey as she explores new horizons.

At Gagosian, Marian Anderson, Marilyn Monroe, Dovima and a cast of showstoppers.

In the 1980s, Andy Warhol created an illustration of the musician Prince, which drew heavily from an existing image by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. 

Now, four decades later, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Pop artist infringed on Goldsmith’s copyright. Experts say that the case has complex implications for the ever-shifting boundaries of copyright infringement and fair-use law. 

Seven out of the nine Supreme Court justices ruled against Warhol’s estate, which argued that the portrait in question should be considered the work of Warhol alone. 

“To hold otherwise would potentially authorize a range of commercial copying of photographs, to be used for purposes that are substantially the same as those of the originals,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the majority opinion.

The two dissenting justices, Elena Kagan and John Roberts, argue that this ruling could stifle the creativity of artists who want to riff off of copyrighted material.

“It will impede new art and music and literature,” wrote Kagan. “It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.”

The saga began in 1981, when Newsweek commissioned Goldsmith to photograph Prince. In 1984, Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create an illustration of the musician for an article; the magazine also paid Goldsmith a one-time fee of $400 so that Warhol could use one of her photos as a reference point.

After Prince’s death in 2016, Condé Nast (which operates Vanity Fair) used Warhol’s art for a tribute to the musician. The company paid Warhol’s estate for the right to use the image, reasoning that this version of the work was Warhol’s. 

Goldsmith, however, had only authorized Condé Nast to use the image once.

The legal battle revolves around a divisive question: After Warhol altered the image, did it belong only to him, or should Goldsmith retain some degree of control?

The court’s decision relies on how the image was used. In this case, wrote the justices, the commercial nature of the Prince portraits means that the images aren’t covered by fair-use law. 

Still, the ruling stipulated that certain other Warhol pieces—such as his famous depiction of Campbell’s soup cans—should be viewed in a different light. Sotomayor wrote, “The purpose of Campbell’s logo is to advertise soup. Warhol’s canvases do not share that purpose. Rather, the Soup Cans series uses Campbell’s copyrighted work for an artistic commentary on consumerism, a purpose that is orthogonal to advertising soup.”

Michael W. Carroll, a scholar of intellectual property law at American University Washington College of Law, tells the New York Times’ Matt Stevens that this distinction is critical. “It was the licensing use, not the creative use, that was at issue,” he says. 

Warhol built his career by transforming the photos of others. For example, his 1964 Marilyn Monroe portraits are based on a publicity photo for the film Niagara (1953); last year, one of those portraits, Shot Sage Blue Marilyn, became the most expensive 20th-century American artwork ever sold. Other images from popular culture—from Coca-Cola bottles to Disney characters—also served as source material. 

Reactions to the Supreme Court ruling are mixed. Noah Feldman, a scholar of law at Harvard, writes in Bloomberg that the decision helps artists but harms creativity. 

“The upshot is that little-guy artists win, because they now have more rights than they had before to claim credit for works reused by others,” he writes. “But art as a whole loses, because the decision restricts how artists generate creativity by sampling and remixing existing works.”

Carroll tells the Times that the ruling leaves a lot of room for conflicting interpretations, and the legal battle has only just begun.

“Is it really just about competitive licensing use, or is it more broadly about creating derivative works?” he adds. “I think what you’ll see is lower courts reading it each way, and then eventually this issue is going to find its way back to the Supreme Court.”