What do you think it means to be an "appropriation artist"? Do you think all artists working today may fit that description? Why or why not?
Appropriation by definition is taking something someone else owns. An appropriation artist takes other artist's work and uses it in their own works. While the word usually carries rather negative connotations, I will admit that not every work that could be considered "appropriation" is necessarily art theft. I myself enjoy creating photomanipulations such as this (don't ask about the context, it's a long story) from free stock images available online, and many other artists do the same, some for profit (some stock providers allow their images to be used in commercial works, some do not), others for fun. However, there is a marked difference between using free stock images and providing proper credit to the original photographer, and outright stealing another artist's final creative product for financial gain.
This article gives examples about how the notion of appropriation can date back to as early as the 16th century; what do you think about that? Aside from the technological aspects, are artists working today appropriating any differently then those artists working then?
Unfortunately, there have been coattail-riders and ambitiously lazy people for as long as the concept of "art" has existed, and they aren't likely to go away anytime soon. With the advent of the computer, the internet, and photo-editing software, it has become even easier for appropriation artists to find new material to claim as their own.
The artist Marcel Duchamp (who we looked at when we talked about Nude Descending a Staircase) is often attributed to be the grandfather of contemporary art as we know it today. There are a couple major instances where he used a very blatant form of appropriation - can you find one (aside from the urinal)?
...So urinals are art now?
I'm sorry, Mr. Kass. Please don't give me an F.
Anyway, aside from the urinal, he passed off a bicycle wheel as art too.
I'm guessing high art is fancy, scholarly pieces with obscure and debatable meanings that is sold to museums or upper-crust private collectors for six/seven/eight figures, while low art can be understood and appreciated with a more-reasonable amount of effort. Seeing as I want to be a game designer/digital artist and not an art critic, hopefully I'll be able to stick with "low" art instead of quitting the medium altogether. When involved in appropriation, I would imagine that they become whatever the new "artist" intends it to be, or whatever they're willing to let the critics say.
The term "sampling" is usually used in music, but in general art, I imagine it would be using a small piece of a previous work or employing a technique used to create that work, as opposed to using the whole piece outright. "Image transfer" could either be tracing or electronically copying artwork (which is how middle-schoolers appropriate artwork), or using an actual method of mixed-media to create something new.
The article makes no mention of his race, and it honestly hadn't occurred to me to wonder what it was. Depending on how one chooses to analyze it, it could go either way. Personally, I'm curious as to what made him decide to work with these photographs and his feelings on their historical context. However, defacing iconic photographs seems just a bit disrespectful to me.
Think about the way Miranda Lichtenstein talks about "reappropriation" and this notion that almost anything can be termed "appropriated," especially if it's based off of something that has happened already in real life; in this terminology, any kind of documentary or viewing of documented film can be considered an appropriation. Do you agree with that assessment?
She certainly does have a point in that all nearly works of art from visual to literary to musical are built on the foundations of that which came before it. However, what makes art art, at least in my opinion, is the ability to create something that is entirely your own, even if it can be said to draw inspiration from another source. This should not be confused with creating something directly from another source (looking at you, Richard Prince).
Pick one of these other artists mentioned in the article, research them, and talk about their work some. Tell me why you chose them and what you find interesting about what they do:
Although I'm beginning to lose what little appreciation I had for "fine art", I did find the works of Sara VanDerBeek interesting, as (most of) her pieces demonstrate the concept of appropriation in a way that isn't outright thievery for once. She takes ordinary objects and assembles them herself to create a unique construct that is engaging to look at and ponder. While her use of magazine images in some works might be considered copyright violation, for the most part her sculptures are compared of random refuse arranged ornamentally, displaying creativity rather than thievery.
Think about the way Miranda Lichtenstein talks about "reappropriation" and this notion that almost anything can be termed "appropriated," especially if it's based off of something that has happened already in real life; in this terminology, any kind of documentary or viewing of documented film can be considered an appropriation. Do you agree with that assessment?
She certainly does have a point in that all nearly works of art from visual to literary to musical are built on the foundations of that which came before it. However, what makes art art, at least in my opinion, is the ability to create something that is entirely your own, even if it can be said to draw inspiration from another source. This should not be confused with creating something directly from another source (looking at you, Richard Prince).
Pick one of these other artists mentioned in the article, research them, and talk about their work some. Tell me why you chose them and what you find interesting about what they do:
Although I'm beginning to lose what little appreciation I had for "fine art", I did find the works of Sara VanDerBeek interesting, as (most of) her pieces demonstrate the concept of appropriation in a way that isn't outright thievery for once. She takes ordinary objects and assembles them herself to create a unique construct that is engaging to look at and ponder. While her use of magazine images in some works might be considered copyright violation, for the most part her sculptures are compared of random refuse arranged ornamentally, displaying creativity rather than thievery.
Interesting observations. You definitely raise a very good point of how "fine art" should be something that's entirely original done by the artist. This is an unimportant side note, but love how you posted the "fuck it all" dubbing of Frozen.
ReplyDelete