Jesus, Mary and Fucking Joseph! First Die Antwoord rudely fails, to even acknowledge from where they are pilfering visual content, for their little video. (That would be from Jane Alexander’s Butcher Boys) click here for details. Then this! An infinitely more humourous example of appropriation. Bettie Coetzee-Lambrecht does not just infringe, but decides she is entitled to make “merchandise” out of Stuart Bird’s sculpture Blood Knot , currently on display at the Goodman Gallery Cape. PM knows you are dying to see Bettie’s little“artworks”. They are on the Artslant website (Artslant AKA a place where reasonably crappy amateurs, like to put their art online , for sale, for ridiculous high prices).

Bettie, a self-proclaimed Artist, Writer, Art lover and Art professional, see her Artslant profile here. In all her infinite wisdom thought it was okay to photograph Stuart Bird’s Blood Knot, push the contrast, and make a Limited Edition of 10, Giclee Print , Dimensions: 40 x 30 inches, and sell these “Original” “Artworks” online for $687.50.
PM is so amused; PM might just pee in PM Panties! Sweet Bettie, can PM call you Bettie? You have been a little bit of an idiot! Shame PM almost feels sorry for you. Bettie called her two merchandised Stuart Bird artworks “Re-Context The Artwork 1” and “Re-Context The Artwork 2”. Bless! Have a look at an image of the sculpture Blood Knot below and then at Bettie’s BEUTS.

Detail of  Blood Knot , hand carved wood, Image Courtsey of Stuart Bird and the Goodman Gallery.

Bettie’s little “artwork” Re-Context The Artwork 1. Giclee Photographic Print .

In Bettie’s defence she does acknowledge Stuart Birds work, but No Bettie! No! No! No! Panga Management feels a moral obligation to unpack this for you.  PM is going to be kind, and put what would rightly  be viewed as blatant theft, down to naivety ( for now anyway). Firstly Bettie, Re-Context The Artwork 1 and 2 are just plan ugly, and anyone who would pay money for them would naturally be blind. Secondly, and more importantly Bettie, you have photographed an artwork of great merit and your photographic “interpretation” destroys its dignity , the frightening thing is you obviously can’t see that. Then of course Bettie, it is such blatant theft PM just can’t get PM’s head round the fact that you did not know what it was that you were doing.

Hell Bettie, why don’t you just jump onto the “I’m going to steal from Jane Alexander, because everyone else is” wagon. All you need to do, is go to the National Gallery, photograph The Butcher Boys, change the image to Black and White, push the contrast and make prints to sell online. You would not even have to change the text you used on Artslant, to justify your appropriation of Stuart Birds works. You could just cut and paste changing the artist name and venue. Example below. (your words Bettie)

“The contemporary South African artist, Stuart Bird’s Jane Alexander installations in the Goodman Gallery National Gallery, Cape Town, teased me for re-visioning some of them by turning them into two-dimensional pictures in which the gallery space became intrinsically part of the picture. Both in choosing the non-documentary angles from which to photograph some works and in the post production, changed the shapes, colours, and eliminated some important details so as to create a new experience.”

Now can you see how stupid your justification sounds?

Dear Bettie, if you are very lucky Stuart Bird will take this “creative act of stupidity” as a horrific compliment, and all you might receive is an email demanding their immediate removal and destruction.  If you remove/destroy them quickly, Stuart Bird might be kind enough to laugh it off.

But if PM was Stuart Bird, PM would make an example out of you and sue you for everything and the clothes on your back. Shame Bettie, PM hopes for your sake Stuart Bird is gentler than Panga Management, because if it went to court there are no grey areas here, Stuart Bird would kick your ass.

This entry was posted in Advice On Art And Love., South African Art, South African Lifestyle, Visual Arts and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Anonymous says:

    Just thought i would share.

    Bettie’s got it all wrong, did she even really look at the work?
    Below I copied part of her ‘Re-Context The Artwork#2’ description: “…His sculptural installation consisted of an ordinary brown rope…” ????

    Below is the correct description.
    An extract form the Cape Times:

    “…Stuart often conceals his craftsmanship behind a manufactured appearance. In Blood knot and Chip off the old Block, he simulates rope in carved wood with such success, that many viewers fail to recognize the material, and the resultant confusion is part of the statement which concerns a media-saturated society that can no longer differentiate between appearance and reality…”

    Bettie’s description:

    …This series forms art of my ongoing exploration of the art gallery experience both through writing as a freelance art critic for a newspapergroup in South Africa and also through my visual (photography) intervention, or dialogue with the artist, Stuart Bird, who created the installation. His sculptural installation consisted of an ordinary brown rope, tightly strung and tied with a bloodknot between to walls inside the Goodman Gallery in Cape Town. Lit from above the rope cast a shadow underneath while red liquid was poured on the floor as a rather literal reference to the ‘blood’ in the word, ‘bloodknot’. ….

  2. mali says:

    This is scary!

  3. Anonymous says:

    in a world where intellectual property laws are challenged on a daily basis from access to medicine to downloading the latest beyonce track for free I do not think we can get our panties in such a bunch. some idiot stole someone else shit and sold it for money. welcome to the internet enjoy your stay.

    • Shame sweet Anon, you are such a defeatist! you surrender so easily. Let’s put aside your grumpy internet stance for a moment (if you’re intelligent you will see that there are no grey areas with this particular incident. So best to refrain from boring PM with any of your half understood postmodern theories) let’s focus on the point of the post, which is to bring attention to a theft. Are you suggesting that stealing is okay? Are you suggesting that because stealing happens all the time, everyone should just roll into a defeatist fetal position? Shame Anon …..Has life been hard on you? Are you a comfort eater? The comment section of Panga Management is not the right place to seek a group therapy session.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I am with PM on this issue. It is easy to say that you are reinventing when the artistic craft and creative conceptual work has already been accomplished before you arrive with your camera or some other image capture device. Copying something you could never create yourself is always stealing.I do not understand why people can not realize this simple thing. Any one can point a camera at the masterful work of another artist, but in what universe does that act make the work theirs?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s