Tom Forsythe
| Tom Forsythe | |
|---|---|
| Born | Tom Forsythe |
| Nationality | United States |
| Known for | Artist |
| Notable work | "Food Chain Barbie", "Personal Illusions", "TV Watching", "Random Observations" |
| Website | www.tomforsythe.com |
Tom Forsythe is an artist who lives and works in Utah. He is known for his photographic work of Barbie dolls, which caused some controversy resulting from a lawsuit brought against him by Mattel. The company lost the case when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the images were original artwork in 2004. [1]
Art Work
Style
Forsythe is known for his famous “Barbie” portraits, portraying Barbie dolls in provocative yet suggestive positions usually without clothes and often juxtaposed with some sort of kitchen or cooking appliance. This line of art is called the “food chain Barbie”.[2] There is a meaning behind each collage of the naked Barbies, and its purpose is to not exploit the doll doing strange things but to show how Forsythe views the world and how seemingly mad it really is. His work has been described as “unappetizing”.[1]
The main reason behind Forsythe's use of the Barbie is that the doll is seen as an American icon. Forsythe chose to use the dolls in his art because he wanted to attempt to put the sexist idea to rest. When Barbie came out, the doll was supposed to represent beauty and gave a false idea how woman were supposed to look and act.[2]
Influence
Forsythe's photographs portraying the famous Barbie doll have had an influence on how we think about big corporations as well as the roles of women.
Marjorie Heins, in her book Will Fair Use Survive, said, "the benefits to the public in allowing such use - allowing artistic freedom and expression and criticism of a cultural icon - are great." She also said "it serves the aims of the Copyright Act by encouraging the very creativity and criticism the act protects."
According to Forsythe, the Barbie represents the idea of “perfection” and how women are supposed to look and act.[2] His artwork was meant to lay rest to this so-called “beauty myth”. In Emily Borden's article “The object of perfection: real or plastic,” she talks about how Forsythe's photos gives woman a voice. Feminists celebrate that they won't be seen as a housewife but rather whoever they want to be. She says “it shows woman they don’t have to be that perfect Barbie doll without any flaws but rather just accept themselves and who they are.”
Court case
Forsythe's art theme called “Barbie's power as a beauty myth” attracted legal attention. After displaying his work at art fairs in Utah and Missouri, Mattel Inc. took notice of his use of their copyrighted doll. Mattel Inc. Mattel was very unhappy that Forsythe had been using their product and showing it in a very revealing way, and they sue Forsythed in 1999 for copyright and trademark infringement. After several years of appeals, a federal judge instructed Mattel to pay Tom Forsythe legal fees of more than $1.8 million.[3] The 9th Circuit Court ruled that Forsythe's art did not violate 'fair use', which allows use of copyrighted material where the work will be provided to the public. Because of this, they ruled in Forsythe's favor that the Copyright Act applied in the case of his work.[3]
Reactions
Many artists and feminists were glad to hear that Forsythe had won the case. To them the case madea statement, that copyright is "destructive to the free exchange of ideas".[3] To Forsythe, the case was a victory in the fight for free speech. He felt that he was using a form of art to show how political and social ideals play in our world today.[3]
Forsythe felt that the case taught him a lesson about the US legal system. In his own words,
“From what I’ve learned in the course of defending my very basic free speech rights, this is a fairly standard cost of fighting a legal battle in federal court. It only confirms what I’ve always sensed, that the legal system is little more than a boxing ring for the rich with the common people not even invited to experience the proceedings on pay per view. We may be free to express ourselves, but if that expression involves offending a rapacious corporation, they’re equally free to sue; and unless we have the wherewithal to fight off high powered attorneys, that’s where our free speech ends.”[2]