It's interesting to me to watch an artist over the long term. There are those who seem to have a style or a type of work all their own and it remains with them over several years. Others seem to change on a more routine basis, even if work can still be identified by some sort of tell in a piece. Some seem to come up with ideas out of thin air, while others use appropriation in their work - heck, some have made entire careers out of using appropriation as the bulk of their production.
To me, the key in being an artist who appropriates other artists' work is that the art changes significantly enough in some manner to truly call it his/her own. There are those who disagree and would say that the significance is not in the amount that changes, but the intention behind the appropriation that often makes it the "revised" work of the artist who appropriated an original piece.
Personally, I think there are some benefits to using appropriated imagery, particularly if it's imagery that is known to the vast majority of society. It can help reinforce the idea behind the appropriated work. Additionally, in a day when we are bombarded with imagery, I often wonder if it's possible to not appropriate work in some manner. The artist may not even be conscious of what s/he is doing or that an idea was subconsciously swiped from somewhere/someone else. Ideas come from somewhere -- they don't just happen without reason and experience, even when someone seems to create out of nothing.
I think that all artists appropriate imagery in some form or another, but to me the biggest question is whether there is enough present to be able to call the work unique or thought provoking outside of its original intention. If I take the imagery of a leaf on a tree and create a hat for an imagined creature, have I appropriated from nature? Is there anything wrong with that? What if I take the image of the Mona Lisa and paint it as exactly as I can from the original? Have I appropriated imagery or simply stolen the work of someone else? Should there be an objection to this type of work?
Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide what constitutes appropriation and what constitutes theft of art, but I do think it's something that should be thought about and considered as art is created. Is there enough (whether in concept or physical change) to claim the work as my own? If the answer is "no," then perhaps it should be re-worked or re-imagined to get to a place where I can stand behind the belief that the work, whether appropriated or not, is truly my own.
 |
| In school, I once painted Munch's The Scream. At the time I didn't think much about the idea of appropriation, but was focused on style more than anything else. *Image found here |
Personally, I think there are some benefits to using appropriated imagery, particularly if it's imagery that is known to the vast majority of society. It can help reinforce the idea behind the appropriated work. Additionally, in a day when we are bombarded with imagery, I often wonder if it's possible to not appropriate work in some manner. The artist may not even be conscious of what s/he is doing or that an idea was subconsciously swiped from somewhere/someone else. Ideas come from somewhere -- they don't just happen without reason and experience, even when someone seems to create out of nothing.
I think that all artists appropriate imagery in some form or another, but to me the biggest question is whether there is enough present to be able to call the work unique or thought provoking outside of its original intention. If I take the imagery of a leaf on a tree and create a hat for an imagined creature, have I appropriated from nature? Is there anything wrong with that? What if I take the image of the Mona Lisa and paint it as exactly as I can from the original? Have I appropriated imagery or simply stolen the work of someone else? Should there be an objection to this type of work?
Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide what constitutes appropriation and what constitutes theft of art, but I do think it's something that should be thought about and considered as art is created. Is there enough (whether in concept or physical change) to claim the work as my own? If the answer is "no," then perhaps it should be re-worked or re-imagined to get to a place where I can stand behind the belief that the work, whether appropriated or not, is truly my own.
Comments
Post a Comment