Response: On the rights of Molotov man
While reading the first section of On the Rights of Molotov Man I was frustrated with the photographer who was threatening to sue Joy. A question featured in the story and posed by a blogger named nmazca pinpoints the ideas that I was struggling with, “Who owns the rights to this man’s struggle?” Initially I felt it audacious for a photographer who took and produced another person's image to feel they had the right to sue the painter who then utilized that image for another piece unless the photographer had explicitly gotten this man’s permission to use his image and had agreed to licensing restrictions with him. Photography can often be voyeuristic so I did not really think this would be the case. At this point I am not particularly precious about the capturing of my own image because I largely know it is inevitable, but on principle I believe that individuals should have full control of how images of them are used and produced. I was not for the artist also using the image, but I just found it a bit outrageous that the photographer felt they could try and invoke such a spirit of ownership over the likeness of their subject. However, upon reading the photographer's explanation and having more context around the lawsuit threat I fully agree with her stance, because, while the artistic practice of decontextualizing to explore a broader concept or narrative can be an interesting one, I often encounter instances of this practice that I disagree with. The Molotov Man story is one of them. There are certain groups who have their stories consistently decontextualized and modified in ways that undermine their experience. I’ve observed this most with the stories of those who are already disempowered as they have not been granted the means to control their own narratives in the first place. To decontextualize significant events or experiences for people whose stories are already being limited and written by others is to further your own agenda at their expense. In this specific story the painting was made for an audience in the United States who is more than likely not engaging with diverse stories about the lives of Nicaraguans and for me that is where the problem lies.
Other things this made me think about:
The conflict between Tamir Rice’s mother, BLM, and the community over the use of her son’s name and image
The massive use of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor’s images after their murders
The release of Aaliyah’s music on streaming platforms and the debate around who owns it and if that should have been done
The impact of the aggressive decontextualization of the Black experience to undermine our anger and fear, the murder of Rayshard Brooks
