Molotov Man

Decontextualization of art is an interesting debate. Is it a perversion of an artist's original intent? Or is art in the eye of the beholder, and there is no such thing as originality? I believe that art must be protected. Copyright, in my opinion, is still very important. However, an interesting problem arrises in this theory of decontextualization. No one can define what is art. If I take and image and add something even miniscule, isn't that still art? The point is, art is subjective. So, we can't easily say this is art and this is not art. In my opinion, we'd have to say that anything goes or nothing goes. I am a fan of decontextualization. I enjoy seeing something in a new way. I think that the photographer of the molotov man has no rights to the picture. The molotov man owns his own image. He owns the points of light that are absorbed by his skin and the excess that is refracted. The photographer, doesn't own him. So, this other woman has every right to make another form of representation of the photograph. After all, isn't a photograph, just another "representation" of real life. So, art, is just a representation of a real original thing. So, there is no "originality" in art. Is that bold to say? Still though, an artist should have some protection. I'm not sure what that is, that's for lawyer's to decide. I think though, that the Molotov man, and its many iterations, are all equally a "truth" of the man's struggle. No one artist owns it entirely.