Course Description


This interdisciplinary fine arts course results in the development of a body of work around contemporary art topics. Research, concept development and studio practice will combine to broaden your skills and ideas. Stimulating assignments together with experimentation promote analysis and understanding of contemporary art ideas, world cultures and historical periods, and other areas of visual information. Studio production and the communication of concepts visually, verbally and in written form will be combined in this thought-provoking course

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Appropriation



The above link provides a good explanation and examples of appropriation. Appropriation in art has been a hotly debated issue of late. What is valid and ethical when it comes to appropriation? How much must the artist alter the original to make it his or her own? Does the original become another’s art just by the claims of the new artist? How about photo references? Should the artist cite the photo as a reference or is it not necessary to mention that the work was done from a photo. How does photo reference compare to direct observation. Should the photo that is used for reference be one that was taken by the artist? 

Comment on your ideas and opinions in relation to appropriation. 

Below are two images, please discuss these images through the lens of appropriation as discussed above and how appropriation is used in different ways.



12 comments:

  1. I think that appropriation is a very hard subject to bind in specify. There are so many ways that a person is inspired by work, and in some ways no artist could ever say that they have never referenced another's work, or used used something they saw. That's what we do. As artist we are visual people and anything could at any moment strike inspiration. Should we deny thing because it was brought on by someone else's work before our own? I don't think so. I believe that photo references and observation are different, however they can be used the same. If you take a photo to capture the observation that you see, instead o, for example a more artistic angle for the photo. And if an artist is using photo references I believe that they should be their own photographs. I use tons of photos for my paintings, and even though the poses, or colors or compositions may be inspired by famous works, or other people I take all my own photos. I set up compositions exactly how I will used them in my painting. I have been critiqued for this many times. People telling me that I am simply painting a photo. But that's not the case at all. I take photos from a viewpoint that is traditional for painting, not a painting of a photo. My work is based on realistic representations, and photos and direct model observation are the best ways to make that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brie makes a good point about inspiration. we do not live and work in a vacuum so we will be influenced by what we see. In addition we all visit museums and galleries to look at work and this too is bound to influence our own. I do think that influence is different from appropriation. When you appropriate you are actually taking an image, subject, or perhaps a set up and using it in a new way to make your own art. I also agree with Brie on using photos as reference. I do the same, not only taking my own photos of my set ups or unique visual framing but then changing the imagery as I create the art. The photo is simply a reference point or tool for the art.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My idea of appropriation almost instantly leads to cut and paste ideas. As Brie said we are always influenced by what surrounds us (and as Char said we do not live in a vacuum). We will always be impacted by what surrounds us whether it be consciously or unconsciously. Something that may catch our eye as we walk down a street may pop up in a piece of art that was influenced by that thing, whatever it may be. Yes, artists become famous for being different and original but that is never the case. Artists compile ideas on top of ideas until finally we have made this mash-up of all those things which turns out to be original. The more you break down a piece of work, the more you can figure out where the artist is coming from and what influenced them. One person may stand in front of a monument and have the exact same image as someone who has stood there 5 minutes earlier. If both photographers were to take the image develop it and put it in a gallery, neither would be at fault for copying, although I'm sure one would try to fault the other. It's a matter of breaking down what we know to make a new idea from it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Appropriation is the definition that I needed to learn in order to understand my own thesis work better. In critiques, my work has constantly been compared to Native American Indian style and although I have acknowledge this forwardly, my answers as to why I was following this style was never good enough for the professors. I have been warned that following this style would be heavily loaded and to be prepared to back it up with strong points as to why I was creating art with this aesthetic. With learning the definition of appropriation it has allowed me to better understand what I am doing in my own work and feel more comfortable moving forward with my same style now that I realize that other artist's have done this just the same. I do want the viewer to recognize the style that I copy and I do hope that the viewer brings away with them their own original associations along with the old contexts of the style.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anne makes an interesting comment on the use of photography and the vantage point of the photograph. Is it original or not. Is the second a copy? What do the rest of you think? Also please comment on how much change needs to be made to the appropriated piece to make it an original work or how little change throws it into the realm of plagiarism?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that appropriation comes in many forms. It can be using a piece of art as reference for another piece, using the same style of a piece of art in another, or actually using a part of or the whole of a piece of art in another separate piece of art. So, when does appropriation become plagiarism? I think that sometimes there is a very fine line between the two that makes it hard to distinguish one from the other. In the images above there are two very different forms of appropriation. The second image is definitely an appropriation of Caravaggio. But no one would ever say that it is a form of plagiarism. The artist took on the style of Caravaggio's paintings and put his/her own take on it. The artist used modern models and a modern day setting. The first image however comes much closer to the idea of plagiarism. Warhol's Campbell Soup Can is literally the exact label on the actual can of soup. He was making a commentary on consumerism, but do his ideas outweigh the fact that some else designed that label for the soup can that looks exactly the same as his painting?
    I think that to be appropriation rather than plagiarism, the piece of art must have some uniqueness to it. It cannot be an exact copy of a piece of art. It must still have something that is unique to the artist who made it. I think that it is the same with the photograph idea. There have been about a million pictures taken of the eiffel tower in paris, but almost all of them look a little different. The world is very small and it is very hard to find something that has never been photographed before. Therefore it is our job as artists to put ourselves into our artwork.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Art appropriation is something that fascinates me personally and influences my own work. There is no question in my mind that there are certain benefits when appropriating artwork. I think that it could be abused. However, I can not think of an example in which there has been this kind of circumstance. Most artists who appropriate artwork do so to add a twist or layer additional meaning in their work. Appropriation should be used as a tool when needed and is definitely not always necessary. The question of how much or how little needs to be changed when referencing other artists works is definitely a tricky one. I don't think much needs to be changed such as in Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q. the changes are very few yet the statement is bold. This is very similar in Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans as well. Warhol is saying a whole lot and addressing multiple subject matters with very little changes to the actual object. However, slight things such as placement change the role of the object. The other painting (that is clearly referencing Caravaggio) is art appropriation that does not copy the literal imagery of another artist, but instead uses extremely similar style, light, and definitely composition that pertain to Caravaggio. I think what matters more than how much physical change to the imagery there is would be the overall and final effect that the work gives. If the statement is strong, intelligent, and relevant the work and therefore the reference would be successful. How would one go about arguing with how much/little needs to be changed when the message works so well?
    When it comes to photo and observational reference I think it would be impossible to not be influenced by the things you see. Mostly because of how easy it is to access imagery with the increase in technology and the use of the internet. I also feel that nowadays it is a free for all when it comes to images on the internet whether they are personal or professional photographs or photographs of artworks they are on the internet to be seen and no one should be under the impression that anything on or about the internet is private.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I feel like as long as the artist implies a new idea and meaning when appropriating the image of a piece of art work it is acceptable. As it was mentioned a few times above, these two images are appropriated in different ways- Warhol used the actual image where the other artist used similar style and lighting to Caravaggio. This makes me realize how often/how easily it is to appropriate images because there are many aspects of an artists work that can be adapted.

    The idea of using photo references is pretty controversial. I feel like entirely copying someone else's photos to the point that the photo is recognizable is not right, while maybe if you are just using certain aspects of the image may be okay. I personally don't use entire photos that other people have taken, but i may reference them for certain parts of what i am doing. I often use photographs in my work and I take them myself or have someone else take them for me. There are so many images out there that are easy to access and that are in our face all the time that we are unconsciously influenced by. Photographs are useful in the way that they can preserve moments and observations that are impossible to remember exactly or that last for more than a second in real life, even though it is ideal to not have to use a photographic reference.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do believe that with appropriation the artist makes the work their own and transforms the original idea into something completely different. However I am not really sure how I feel about with or not the inspirational work should be referenced. I have to very different mindsets about it this sort of topic. There is a part of me as an artist that would like to be recognized if someone is inspired enough by my work to use for their own. At the same time, isn't everything art really? Even if it isn't a photograph, if I draw a picture of a box of animal crackers, a designer or artist still had some say so about the packaging and the design of the product. It seems to be over kill to research who designed animal crackers and reference it, it almost takes from the work of the artist that decided to translate into their own thoughts. So I guess maybe I think it's nice to reference the original but I do not see how it is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tiarra-your comment about the designer of the box of animal crackers is thought provoking. It really points out how we as artists almost always appropriate but usually in ways that require no reference to the original. Its a good argument and suggests that appropriation is an inherent tool for the artist and that perhaps the debate is more about semantics then ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lian, Megan, and Emily have thought this through carefully and presented a good analysis of the questions I posed. Can anyone refute their statements or present some disagreement. Come on everyone-lets get an argument going.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I like what Tiarra says about the artist makes the work their own and transform the original idea. That is the basis for almost every artists work, you borrow a little idea of something from one artist combine it with your own and add a bit more from a third/fourth/fifth artist and you've got your piece of work.

    ReplyDelete