A Fight for Authorship: Interviews with light artist Chris Levine, and holographer Rob Munday

Words by Ashley Blake

Rob Munday and Chris Levine worked together to create the first holographic image of Queen Elizabeth II, which has since been used as the cover image of her obituary by the BBC. The portrait was commissioned by Jersey Heritage Trust in 2003 to celebrate 800 years of the island’s loyalty to the Crown. Visitors can now see a version of this portrait in The National Portrait Gallery, which has been coined the ‘defining image’ of her reign. However, since its unveiling, there have been debates over who should be officially credited in the making of this portrait.

Munday claimed that both he and Levine signed a contract whereby they each had 50% of the credit for the image, but Levine has since claimed full authorship, and many publications such as BBC News have left his name out of the credits. This resulted, according to Munday, in a “story of greed, ego, and deception”.

Artist, and ‘co-creator’ of the portrait, Chris Levine responded to my article, noting that Munday “was a subcontractor to the project and [Levine] did not bring [Munday] in as an artist”, then furthering this by saying that Rob Munday didn’t even make the final hologram.

With rumours of upcoming court cases and legal battles in order to settle this dispute, I interviewed both contributors to find out more.

Equanimity by Chris Levine and Rob Munday, Jersey Heritage Trust, 2004.

Holography is the art and science of creating holograms, which are popularly understood to be images that appear three-dimensional without the use of glasses like those used when watching a 3D film. For me, this type of imagery creates a futuristic and lasting image that acts as more than just a photograph. It almost brings her back to life in front of you, acting as a very personal and intimate experience for the viewer that most of us would never normally experience.

Firstly, I reached out to Rob Munday, who was the UK’s only holographic portrait artist at the time and asked him why this medium of portraiture is so important. He states this is “because ‘true’ holography is the most fundamental and realistic imaging medium ever invented by humankind, and perhaps can ever be invented.”

Continuing this, Chris Levine explains that “The inspired idea of a hologram concept for the Queen’s portrait was that of Gordon Young, the artist and curator brought in to oversee the commission, because it represented modernity and innovation as a celebration of the relationship of the States of Jersey to the Crown in the 21st C.”

However, they chose to create a lenticular rather than a true hologram, due to inherent constraints. Levine said “In the end I chose to go down the lenticular route, essentially a photographic process, because a true hologram has in fact many limitations for shooting living subjects and a lenticular image afforded me more creative options in post-production. Asides the health and safety issues of firing high powered lasers at the Queen which almost killed the project!”

Photograph of Rob Munday and Chris Levine, courtesy of Rob Munday.

When asked about the debate on authorship for this piece, Rob Munday said “For the last eighteen years Chris Levine has continually and falsely tried to claim that he was the sole creator of the work, more often than not, labelling me as the technician from which he merely ‘borrowed’ the camera. This couldn’t be further from the truth.”

In response to this, Levine explains his perspective on the importance of authorship and artists getting the correct credit for their work. “I often collaborate with experts I bring into my productions to help me realise my concepts and visions as they can involve quite advanced tech. I expect them to be creative in problem solving using their technology to meet my visual objectives. These people work under my art direction as my chosen team to create my art and every aspect of the realisation and narrative is ultimately up to me. They are not my artistic partners. Despite what others may believe or wish to be the case regards my Queen work. It’s an attempt to rewrite history.”

Further clarifying Munday’s contribution on the work, Chris Levine explains “I took on the brief by myself and it was entirely up to me and me alone to decide on the creative direction of the work and every aspect of its realisation.” … “[Munday] built the camera system and was technical director, he was not an artistic collaborator. As it happened, not many people know this, I engaged top holographer Dr John Perry in the US to produce the final work because I lost confidence in my team to complete the project in the UK to the specifications I was looking for.” … “Munday was my technical director, a sub-contractor, and to consider him as a co-author in my art is akin to thinking that the studio members who paint Damien Hirst spots have co authorship on the spot paintings. It’s ridiculous and has become tiresome over the years.”

However, Rob Munday provided me with a copy of their contract, which I have been given permission to publish (but have censored for privacy reasons). You can see below that both Munday and Levine have signed a contract entitling them to 50% creative credit in all publicity for the work.

Contract signed by Chris Levine, courtesy of Rob Munday.

Chris Levine decided not to comment on this due to legalities, however implied that there were other factors involved and this case may not be as simple as just this one contract.

To conclude, Munday writes “Sadly, once a misleading account of events has entered into the mainstream artworld, and credits have been falsely attributed, it is exceedingly difficult to change it. I know it wasn’t the first time and it certainly won’t be the last, but it may at least make for a great film, or perhaps a documentary by Waldemar Januszczak one day!”

It’s evident that Levine was solely commissioned for this portrait and Munday was subcontracted, however when it comes to legalities, it may be more complex than it seems. Both have opposing views regarding contractual agreements and crediting, as well as both parties expressing a differing account of events. While it’s difficult to fully deduce which artist is ‘correct’, I’m sure we will hear more of this debate in the near future.