G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
The Thing website (http://www.thing.net) received a letter from Mattel's
lawyer (Mattel manufactures the Barbie Doll) demanding the removal of my
work BKPC (http://www.thing.net/~gh/artdirect/bkpc1.html) from the
website. Mattel is claiming trademark dilution. I mean really!
It does broach some interesting issues. If I were to make an oil
painting of a Barbie Doll there would be nothing that Mattel could say
about my effort. Is this because the audience for art in a gallery is
small or that a handmade object is handmade, giving it an author in some
way?
Of major concern for artists is the exaggerated efforts by corporate
concerns to squash any artworks deemed offensive or opposing their sense
of an orderly global business world. I've enclosed my response to
Mattel's lawyer for the list to look at and comment upon:
Dear Mr. Dunnegan [Mattel's lawyer]:
I am an artist and I created the artwork that prompted your letter to
Wolfgang Staehle [of The Thing, NYC] dated October 21, 1997. I offer
this response as an explanation for my work.
First you should be aware that The Thing is a website that is devoted to
artists and allows them an opportunity to exhibit artworks. There is no
particular perspective or theme to Wolfgang's site; rather it is a place
for artists to show a wide variety of works.
I have chosen to exhibit several works including two pages on the
website that show a parody that I made that includes the Ken doll and
the Barbie doll. I chose to satirize this particular toy and its image
because I felt that was the most effective way to express the protest
that I was making about the use of these products by children who
eventually engage in activities such as war. While I am making a
statement about these toys, I do not believe that I have done so in an
unwholesome or degrading manner but simply in a very established and
artistic way. I doubt that any viewer would make any negative
association to the Ken or Barbie doll but rather would understand the
point of the satire.
Turning to your letter, it appears that you are mostly concerned about
my use of the name "Barbie." I recognize that I did describe the toys,
but once again my reference states only: "Barbie and Ken Politically
Correct!!!!" Once again, I do not believe that this reference to the
name Barbie suggests in any way that this is a work of art sponsored by
Mattel or in some other way officially linked to this manufacturer. This
is clearly an artist website and I am clearly presented as the artist of
this artwork.
I am familiar with stories (whether true or apocryphal) of behemoth
companies that have overzealously attacked even the most innocuous
reference to their image. Hence I suppose that if Mattel is one of these
your demand is therefore not surprising. I can now add myself to the
list of artists who have received such threats. Since, however, I do not
believe that my parody in any way affects the link between Ken and
Barbie and their authorized manufacturer, I feel I am within my rights
to produce this work and display it in the manner that I have.
Sincerely,
G.H. Hovagimyan
+ + +
G.H. also provided us with a brief history of BKPC, the art work in
question:
BKPC - a brief history
BKPC (Barbie & Ken Politically Correct)
[http://www.thing.net/~gh/artdirect/bkpc1.html] is a sequence of
vignettes using dolls to reproduce the act of play within a child's
world. The piece was first presented on The Thing bbs in fall 1994, one
gif a week for 14 weeks. Thing members were invited to download each
image and collect the whole set. This was before the World Wide Web and
before The Thing website. One day I walked into TZ
