The
Copy Rights article and Steal Like An Artist overlap because address the issue
of appropriation, copying, and originality.
The article gives examples of appropriation artists and gives opinions
of different artists on their views of appropriation. One aspect that is very much in common is the
example about Miranda Lichtenstein; she was accused of appropriating a short
film from 1897. But she claims that her
video is a reappropriation from one she saw on Youtube and that the short film
itself is an appropriation because it is a copy of a performance and the dancer
appropriated popular dance moves of that time.
This ties in with Kleon’s claim in Steal like an Artist that basically
everything is copied/appropriated and nothing is 100% original.
An appropriation artist is an artist who bases
all of their work off of reinterpreting another artist’s work. I think that all artists today are
appropriation artists to an extent. What
they create may be their original work and may not look like anything else that
has existed, but all of their thoughts and ideas come from their experiences
and art they have seen so it is not original to them.
I think that the artists
from the 16th century could have been appropriating, but it is more prevalent
now. Art and ideas can travel much
faster and to a wider audience than it could back then. I’m not saying that they didn’t appropriate,
but I think it is more common now. I do
think that appropriating now is different than appropriating then because of
the technology available. Back then ways
to express yourself were more limited and now we have more ways to make art and
to appropriate other art.
I found this image that
Marcel Duchamp appropriated by putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
High art is considered a
piece of work that has high value because of its meaning or how fine it
is. These are works of art that are in
museums or well-known. Low art is
considered low in value because it is more of a craft. An example is an ad. I think that the definitions do change when
being appropriated because famous works of art are appropriated and reprinted
everywhere but they do not hold as much value as the original.
Appropriation, to me, is
taking most or all of the aspects of one piece of work and using them to make
your own work/interpretation. Sampling
is taking like one aspect or looking at many works of art and combining them to
make your own piece. Image transfer is
taking an image and changing it or adding your own elements to change it and
make it your own.
I think that Kelley’s
Black Star Press piece has a deep meaning even though he claims it doesn’t
pertain to race. To me, in combining
white, milk, and dark chocolate together, they are representing the coming
together of the races since the times of segregation in the photo. I think his race, being white, adds a layer
because whites were known for being the most discriminatory and a white artist
showing, what I think, is the coming together of the races, shows how far we have
come. I don’t see a problem with him appropriating
the image.
I do agree that
documentaries are appropriation because there are segments in documentaries
that aren’t filmed by the director but need to be used to show the history or
prove what they are trying to say.
People upload or share videos/pictures taken by other people on social
media all the time but add their own comments, which can be reappropriation.
I chose Cindy Sherman as
the artist I wanted to research. I found
her work interesting because there was a lot of nudity… When looking through
the google images of her work, it was somewhat creepy. One of her series that I found was titled “Sex
Pictures” which was dolls posed in sexual positions, and it is meant to show
the dehumanization of women in our society.
I thought this was an interesting feminist like approach.
