You are currently browsing the monthly archive for November 2007.
I begin with a quote by John Perry Barlow from “The Economy of Ideas: A Framework for Rethinking Patents and Copyrights in the Digital Age.”
The enigma is this: If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even having our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we can’t get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?
( Barlow, 1993)
Whenever we discuss appropriation we often link it to the borrowing or stealing of ideas. What I think is interesting about Barlow is that he looks at this concept from a different angle. He views it from the perspective of property; what you create is your own no matter where it comes from. He also brings another element to the table. He discusses ideas as comodification and how comodification works in the new digital age. I think it is important to examine how peoples work is being distributed in the digital age and how this affects the artist. Barlow claims that the original idea belongs to the person who first brings it to the market or to the public. Here is my problem, once it is brought to the market, what will people do with it? As seen in the quote by Barlow, now a day anything can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed, so what does that mean? Does this mean that any work I create will no longer be sacred because it will be accessible to everyone via the internet? Will the idea of an original copy seize to exist because everything is done digitally now therefore you can never have an original copy because it gets lost in cyerberspace? Or does it simply mean I will never make money off my work? I often wonder how the digital age will affect originals. In an era where plagiarism and copyright are such issues, is it possible to claim anything as your own original idea or are we always influenced by something? These are questions I often ask myself and which Barlow tries to answer. He believes it is up to government to help stop the stealing of information. Yet at the same time he believes that without the exchange of information there is no life. I tend to agree with this thought. Everything is information, therefore in stopping people from thinking and responding to other people’s ideas, are we then stopping the flow of information. Information is not something that should be bought and sold, if should be free. We should be able to think and brainstorm without fear. We should not fear that people will assume our ideas are not our own, we should not fear that someone will steal our ideas without paying. There are copyright laws for a reason, and although Barlow claims information should be free, I feel that this comes with problems. Instead of information being free of cost, I feel that information is something that can be exchanged. Although it does not come with monetary value, it comes with the idea that you are exchanging your information for someone else’s. Therefore the flow of information is still free, but everyone is still able to gain something from it. This helps with the idea of authorship. I feel that what a true author or artist truly wants is to get their ideas and views out to the public. Sure money helps them survive, but if the information is not there, then there is no money. On the internet, if we exchange information for information, then their work still gets recognized as their own. Take for example music. There have always been issues about downloading illegal music on the internet. What seizes to go unrecognized is the fact that even though people are not directly paying money to the author or artist, none the less, the artist’s music is still getting recognition which can help the artist in other ways other than record sales. It helps get the artists name out there, it enables people who would not normally listen to their music listen to it, it makes the radio stations play their music, and it helps with ticket sales to concerts. If the media knows an artist is popular online, and puts them into the spotlight, then the artist is able to make money through special appearances. I have always believed if the person is a true fan, then being able to download their music will not stop them from buying the actual tangible artifact. I think that even though our society is use to a world where information is at their finger tips via the World Wide Web, we still desire the ability to own the actual object, whether it’s a CD or a book. This type of ownership, even in the digital age will never seize to exist. That is why to me, worrying about control over the distribution is not an issue, because when one door closes another opens. If your material is made more readily available to the audience, there are also benefits to that. Maybe they are not recognizable right away, but soon enough we will all feel the positive affects of letting information flow.
Laura
I believe that the difference between appropriation and plagiarism has to do with the fact that appropriation is usually used to prove or argue a point. Plagiarism is used recycle a thought without altering anything about it. Appropriation is also used to help in the evolution of cultures through appropriating characteristics from other cultures. There is however a fine line between appropriation and plagiarism. Such artist collectives as FOUND! Magazine take found objects and put them together in magazine form usually under one theme such as their latest issue dealing with jail time. They’re not claiming they were the ones who wrote the material but they do now own whatever they are sent. With plagiarism, it’s considered illegal. To plagiarize, one must steal someone’s work and claim it as their own without acknowledging a previous author. I believe that is the most important point to draw the line between the two – the acknowledgment of a previous author. In school, when writing an essay, if we’re to re-state an idea or theory, we’re to cite the author we got the information from. That in itself is a form of appropriation because we’re using these ideas to help prove or argue a point. To use their ideas and not cite the author would be illegal – and thus, plagiarism.We see appropriations in many different forms however, and it can often lead people to believe that it is plagiarism. I feel that if people examine whether or not the author is being credited, it will help differentiate between the two.
–Samille
For my final blog, I feel that it is important to reflect on issues brought up in the course as well as my ideas of appropriation and authorship and why they are important. We have seen how appropriation occurs in many forms of media such as art, film, and music. Throughout the term I feel that my opinion has changed in regards to what appropriation is. At first I thought that appropriation had a very negative connotation, and even though in general I still feel people view it as negative, I no longer do. Through an examination of all the different definitions of appropriation I have found Craig Owens definition most helpful to me. He claims that appropriation may be viewed as “the reading of one text through another.” This can be seen through the work of Sherry Levine in “Fountain.” Her work was one of our earlier examples of appropriation. I feel that although her work comes from an original idea by Marcel Duchamp, it is still original. She has taken an object and recreated something new out of it based on how she views it. The audience is able now to examine this view as new and interesting. This is also an example of how appropriation is viewed as work that is borrowed and how images and ideas can be reused to make something new.
Before I believed that appropriation was more a form of stealing, but now I view appropriation as paying homage to the original. Through examples viewed in class like the Simpson’s parody of the film Mr. and Mrs. Smith; it becomes clearer to me that this type of parody pays homage to something that was very influential in today’s culture. By using humour, The Simpson’s are able to draw from what is happening in society and are able to comment on it. I do not think this form of appropriation is negative, I feel that it is a sign of how popular the film Mr. and Mrs. Smith really is.
Throughout the course the idea of the original was often brought up. Is there such a thing as an original idea anymore? I think it depends on the situation and how close to the original it is. Take music for example. Is there not only so many notes and so many cords that can be used in a song? Now a day so many artists use other artist’s melodies or even do complete cover songs. This brings up the idea of stealing from other artists. Although legal, how can it be stealing if people are able to recognize that these songs come from somewhere else? The artists are not denying the original songwriter; they are simply paying homage to them by recreating their work. I do believe that nothing is as great as the original; therefore I feel that an artist who recreates an old song is only making it more popular by introducing it to a new generation. The original will always be there and the artist recreating the song is simply bringing their own twist to the song and showing their take on it.
There are several issues that have come up in the course, especially the debate of appropriation verse plagiarism. I do not feel appropriation is a form of plagiarism. Plagiarism steals the idea without acknowledgement of where it came from. Appropriation may borrow an idea, but there is always recognition of where it came from. We also looked at authorship. An author always has his or her name on a piece of work, so we know who created it. In my opinion, the author must die for the reader to be born. The author is a function which brings information to its viewer. In order for the viewer to understand and appreciate what he or she is reading or viewing, the authors view must be set aside so that the viewer can draw their own conclusions. Whether a work is authentic or original will always be questioned, so that is why I think it is important to look at all forms of art, music and film as appropriation, that way we can recognize that it is a borrowed idea, yet at the same time recognize that it is still something new.
Laura
Today in class we discussed appropriation in film. Throughout our discussion, I could not help but think of a prime example of appropriation in regards to the myth of the noble savage. My example of this is a documentary film from 1922 by Robert Flaherty called Nanook of the North. Nanook of the North was a popular documentary film that follows Nanook and his family in their everyday happenings up north. This film incorporates the myth of the savage in that Flaherty shows footage of typical behaviour of Nanook and his family like making igloos, and lighting campfires. At the same time he creates a fantasy of what it is like to live up north by making Nanook revive a dangerous method of walrus hunting that Nanook’s people had abandoned when they became able to trade pelts for guns. This staged scenario only perpetuates the myth of the noble savage because Flaherty is making the lives of these people seem more difficult then what they are. He is also showing their lifestyle as timeless and unchanging; that the modern world has had no affect on them, even though it has. I’ve always felt that documentary film is a tricky medium. It is a genre of film that people assume to be true, and that is why they do not question its content. Nanook of the North is an example of appropriation because it shows how aboriginals are preserved not in real life but on the terms of the dominant western culture. Although Flaherty is able to capture a lot of what it is like to live up north, through editing he is showing a fantasy of what it is like to be native. He is taking the myth of the dying race and turning it into consumption. He is creating a film that he knows people will want to watch and buy because it represents ‘the other’. What people do not realize is that it is not completely accurate. Nanook of the North represents how the dominant culture is trying to preserve native culture yet they are doing it through their own perceptions of what it is to be native. Does this form of documenting really help preserve the native culture or is it just us idealizing what it is like to live up north since we will never really experience it. The film shows western culture what we want to see instead of what is actually real. Flaherty is trying to show the native’s point of view yet by romanticizing the images he is actually taking away from their culture.
Here is a clip from Nanook of the North:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLERFRQl5EY
In this clip you can see how Flaherty idealizes their life by introducing them. He makes it seem like the family can all fit in a kayak and that this is the way they travel. In reality this is a staged scenario that comes off as quite humourous, yet the audience may see it as real. What implications does doing this have? I think that this romanticizes the way they live and bares a false representation of the native culture. Instead of showing their lives, Flaherty is more interested in entertainment value over truth.
Laura
This coming Tuesday is our last class. In lieu of a reading, please look over your notes from classes and answer the following questions:
1. What are the various theories of appropriation and authorship we have looked at in this course (make a list)?
2. What is appropriation (in your opinion)? What different forms does it take?
3. Is appropriation always confrontational or oppositional? Why? Why not?
4. Is appropriation always linked to the avant-garde? Why? Why not? What is its relationship to the avant-garde?
5. What is the difference between appropriation and plagiarism?
6. What are the main issues we have discussed in this course?
Please bring your answers to class on Tuesday November 27, 2007.
In addition please note that I have given an extension on the final paper. It is now due Monday December 3, by 4pm. Turn in the paper to the Visual Arts office (GLN 121) any time before then. If you would like feedback on your draft, appointments are available on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week. Email me to make one.
We only have two classes left in this course! Tomorrow we will discuss an issue that has arisen several times in our discussions over the term — When Subversive Becomes Mainstream: Appropriation of Subcultures. Please be sure to read the assigned reading as we will revert back to seminar format after several weeks of lectures. Come prepared with questions or comments about the reading. think of examples of subcultures that became mainstream. Why does this happen, in your opinion?
The reading is available online. Chuck Kleinhans, “Cultural Appropriation and Subcultural Expression: The Dialectics of Cooptation and Resistance,” transcript of a paper given in 1994.
Additionally, please bring your examples of cultural appropriation to class.
Finally, I will talk briefly about Kent Monkman and Rebecca Belmore. Belmore’s work, Fountain, was shown at the 2005 Venice Biennale. Monkman has a new show, The Triumph of Mischief, at MOCCA in Toronto.
I’ve decided to post some links in regards to my essay for peer-editing purposes, and for those to get a better feel of what I’m writing about – which is the cultural appropriation of belly dance in western culture.
Yvonne Martay
Vintage Dancers – Buddha Bar, “Tears Inshalla”
Afro Mood
Little Egypt_ORIG Belly Dancer_EarLy Moving Pictures_Uh Huh
I Dream of Jeannie
++._
You might be interested in this opening in Toronto on Friday. Monkman’s work re-appropriates Paul Kane’s paintings of Aboriginal people. I’m going to try to make it!
——————————————————————————————————
Kent Monkman, The Triumph of Mischief
Shelagh Keeley, An Encyclopaedia of Memory and Slowness
November 15 – December 30, 2007
Public Reception: Friday, November 16th, from 7 – 10 p.m.
Kent Monkman, Detail from Trappers of Men (2006), 84” x 144”, acrylic on canvas,
Photo by Isaac Applebaum, Courtesy of the Montreal Museum of Fine Art
The Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art is pleased to present the flambouyant, multi-media extravaganza by Kent Monkman, The Triumph of Mischief, in our mainspace gallery, and three distinct bodies of drawings by Shelagh Keeley, under the title An Encyclopaedia of Memory and Slowness, in our project room, both opening on Friday November 16th and continuing through December 30th, 2007.
Kent Monkman is a Manitoba-born, Toronto-based artist of Cree and Irish ancestry. He produces work in a variety of media, including painting, video and film, photography, sculpture, installation and performance. Monkman draws inspiration from the histories depicted in 19th Century art, including photography and Romantic painting, colonial portrayals of Aboriginal peoples and cinematic genres such as classic Hollywood Westerns. Using these conventions he constructs new stories through images that take into account the missing narratives and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples. His work furthermore explores stereotypes of masculinity and queer culture through the construction of witty situations and scenarios that use sexuality as a tool for challenging the authority of these established histories.
The selection of work included in this exhibition centers around Monkman’s performance alter ego, Miss Chief Eagle Testickle. Monkman will transform the gallery space into Miss Chief’s Tipi Camp that will include two tipis as well as new and recent paintings and films on loan from major public and private collections.
The Triumph of Mischief is a collaborative project between the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art, the Art Gallery of Hamilton and the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, (AGGV). Conceived by David Liss, Director/Curator of MOCCA and Shirley Madill, Director/CEO of the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, the nationally touring exhibition will also be presented at the Winnipeg Art Gallery, St. Mary’s University Art Gallery in Halifax and the AGGV. The tour was launched at the Art Gallery of Hamilton in June 2007.
Born in Oakville, Ontario, Shelagh Keeley has spent more than two decades living and producing artwork in places such as New York, Paris and New Delhi, India. Recently re-located to Toronto, the exhibition, An Encyclopaedia of Memory and Slowness is intended to affectionately mark Keeley’s return to her homeland. This project includes three bodies of drawings: her most recent series of black drawings, An Encyclopaedia of Memory and Slowness (2007), selections from the Erotic Notebook, (2003 – 2005), and Flesh of the Body, (1990), a remarkable, 30-ft.-long drawing across 7 steel panels, originally commissioned by The Mattress Factory in Pittsburgh, acquired by the Art Gallery of North York in 1994 and, by no small coincidence, is now included in the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art.
All MOCCA programs and activities are supported by Toronto Culture, the Ontario Arts Council,
BMO Financial Group, individual memberships and private donations.
Museum of Contemporary Canadian Art 952 Queen Street West, Toronto, ON M6J1G8
Public Information: (416) 395-0067 Gallery Hours: Tuesday-Sunday 11 a.m. – 6 p.m. Pay What You Can
For media information contact Camilla Singh: (416) 395-7430 or csingh@toronto.ca
Shortly after Georgiana Uhlyariks visit and lecture regarding the question of Emily Carr’s appropriation of First Nations culture, I had an amazing opportunity to meet Orhan Pamuk.
Orhan Pamuk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orhan_Pamuk) was the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature for his work Istanbul. During the 25 minutes I spent with Mr. Pamuk (Much of which focused on his previous piece Snow and his upcoming Other Colors) numerous parallels were drawn by the author between life in Turkey and that in Canada. On the subject of representation, Pamuk implied that he is troubled by the publics tendency to stereotype people and places, and assume that they can know a place through somebody else’s words – Or even worse that a person can be known through a sample of his writing. Pamuk mused that as Turkey defines itself in the existence within the shadow of Europe, perhaps so does Canada (In relation to the United States) – And it is possibly in this self-categorization of ‘inferior’ that public representation gains extreme significance.
Pamuk found himself in a state of political challenge as his work gained publicity at an international level. It was at this time that his words were scrutinized, and he was ultimately accused of “Insulting Turkishness”. Although the charges were ultimately dropped, Pamuk had been illustrated as a man who had misappropriated Turkey and its culture on an internationally immeasurable scale.
Pamuk’s reflection on the charges indicate an acute awareness that societies which believe themselves to be marginalized hold offense to any portrayal which affirms that status. Which brings me back to Emily Carr. Georgiana Uhlyariks lecture presented fascinating opportunities for discussion and debate concerning appropriation, culture, identity, accountability, representation, and innumerable other subjects. Orhan Pamuk is a contemporary man who has been accused of doing no less by the authorities in Turkey, though he is a Turkish man himself!
During this semester I believe we are coming to the conclusion that there is no conclusion – all of these moments and examples exist as what they are: moments and examples. We are a society and culture that depends on pre-existing signs, signals and representations in order to facilitate meaningful communication. Difficulties seem to arise when one single piece of the puzzle is suddenly treated with the weight of being the full picture, and are complicated by morphing into stereotypes, assumptions and unfounded beliefs. There is health in dialogue and discourse, and always room for growth and adaption.
For an interesting perspective which is Very Relative (and also to understand the title to my entry), please check out this essay by Binyavanga Wainaina: How to Write about Africa which can be found at http://www.granta.com/extracts/2615.
Wainaina is a young Kenyan author who did not see his first real-life wild animal until he moved to Texas and found himself face to face with a Tarantula (CBC – Week in Review). As a Canadian who has never seen an igloo, moose or even a well-fitting plaid shirt, I feel as though I can relate.
*all information regarding Orhan Pamuk is from a personal communication which took place at Random House Canada (Toronto) November, 2007.
jennifer
Colour, and choices surrounding its use have perhaps always carried some cultural significance – Within present day use; whether it be the wearing of white at a wedding, black at a funeral, or orange during a prison term, society has endowed colour with characteristics of emotion, ability to convey feeling and properties of luck and respect.
The 20th century adoption of colour to convey specific motivation and concern on a representational level is arguably rooted in military tradition. A 1917 US Military marching song She wore a Yellow Ribbon tells the story of a woman wearing a yellow ribbon around her neck until her loved one comes home from the war. A civilian appropriation of this military tradition was illustrated through the national adoption of yellow as a colour supporting the troops.
Yellow resurfaced in the 1970’s during the US Iranian hostage crisis, throughout which the wife of a hostage tied a yellow ribbon round her old oak tree (inspiring the song of the same name). Seemingly, from this point on, the ribbon and its shade became a medium unto itself – a sign with an enormous (and somewhat arbitrary?) indexical reference.
The New York based Visual Arts Caucus chose the colour red to symbolize its solidarity and support of people living with HIV/AIDS in 1991 (overshadowing red’s previous use in anti-drug campaigns). The Estee Lauder Corporation in partnership with the Korman Foundation launched the Pink Ribbon campaign the same year (http://www.esteelauder.com/templates/products/multiproduct.tmpl?ngextredir=1&CATEGORY_ID=CATEGORY5887 ); creating an association with the functionally autonomous colour that has become an arguable force unto itself. Associate professor of kinesiology and health studies at Queen’s University Samantha King describes in her 2006 book, Pink Ribbons, Inc: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy how breast cancer has been transformed from a serious disease and individual tragedy to a market-driven industry of survivorship and corporate sales pitch.
The commercial success of Pink Ribbon products has found its way into all manner of expression: cars, shoes, home electronics, fashion, sports equipment, and of course cosmetics. The appropriation of this colour has been so pervasive that one may automatically assume that an object that is pink, regardless of its origins, is “in support of Breast Cancer”. Perhaps this fear would imply a need for social responsibility with the use of this colour?
But if that is the case, then where does it stop? Bono is well on his way to having no less of an impact with the colour red in its current insurrection: Project(RED)(www.joinred.com ). Lance Armstrong’s LiveSTRONG association (www.livestrong.org) has done the same with yellow. Blue has been adopted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation to symbolize electronic freedom of speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ribbon_Online_Free_Speech_Campaign).
My response to this appropriation of the simple use of colour (perhaps a freedom we have taken for granted for far too long… haha) is that the habit in itself is highly representative of our current culture of convenience.
My personal opinion is that the surge of “demonstration of support” of an issue through a pattern of consumption illustrates both our justification of attachment to our consumer patterns (but it’s Responsible Consumerism, right?) and our need to be publicly recognized for this minor support. Its okay, and perhaps even socially desirable to have maxed out my Amex – because after all, it’s a (RED) Amex, and a portion of my spending (not a portion of my interest, however 
will go to project(RED) which will designate a portion of those funds to an organization which will allot a certain amount of funds to a vehicle of support of sub-Saharan AIDS causes.
Wouldn’t it be easier, and perhaps more socially responsible (if not socially fashionable) to donate the money directly? Or even take a moment (whether that moment is an hour, day, week or lifetime) to make a personal difference through volunteer work, etc? Does The Gap creating a line of (RED) t shirts realistically raise the awareness of the issue, or is functional awareness restricted to that of the brand?
As always, this discussion of the appropriation of colour seems to have inspired more questions than answers in me. I can’t help but wonder if the Estee Lauder/Korman Foundation/Pink Ribbon campaign would be as successful with a different colour – say, khaki? The colours chosen in the previously mentioned examples have carried the trends of fashion in general with them.
The most recent example I have seen is L’Oreal’s use of teal in products which “benefit the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund”. I really like teal, and it’s a colour which is featured in many fall/spring 08 fashion lines – smart choice!
jennifer
The video “Cinematic Orchestra man with the movie camera” was a very interesting video. I decided to watch it again at home. But I thought I would see the effect the video had on me watching it twice, once with the music on and once with it off. The first time I watched it, was with the music on. I Think that this was much better then with it off. The music followed the plot of the story and made the black and white images to me, more interesting. I enjoyed the sequences with the video, and the music made them seem to flow together much better. The video was from the camera mans view, seeing what he sees and following him around. The first scene opens with him standing at the door with the camera and you have to take his lead and follow him where he goes, see what he see’s. Although even with the music on I found the video to be a little boring, just because I’m not a real big fan of black and white films but also because I didn’t find a connection with it. But I must say watching it with the music on was more enjoyable then watching it without sound. The images seemed to flow so nicely with the music. The scenes blended better and made it easier to follow. When the music was off it was hard to stay focused and I turned it off halfway through. But there was points when the music was off that the images started to speed up and change, that I wasn’t able to follow along. It made it harder to understand and the faster scenes didn’t make sense. I do like the fact that the video showed the role of woman getting up and ready for work. I also liked the parts that involved her were also sequenced with scenes of other things but that sometimes mirrored what she was doing. Like when she is washing her face, it flips to another image of someone washing down a street and then another woman washing a window. Also the woman was blinking her eyes, the camera focused in and out and eventually closed, along with the blinds and then opened again, like they were blinking. So although it was slow and I didn’t fully understand it, I enjoyed parts of it and especially enjoyed the music!
I’ve been really putting in some thought into cultural appropriation since not only last week’s guest lecture, but also for my essay. It happens so often in western culture that we often fail to realize it.
For instance, I was just apart of an argument on an online group dedicated to dreadlocks. The issue was whether or not it was appropriate for caucasian people to grow/form/wear locks, and even further, what to call the style in general. There were many on either side of the argument, and even more in between. To be honest, it’s actually quite hard to pinpoint where in the world – and when – the style was first documented. It was never done out of the desire or fashion to begin with, but more due to the fact that combs and such utensils were far from being in existence. It took literally millenniums for it to be even slightly accepted into mainstream culture. Employers used to fire employees with the style claiming that locks were “extreme hairstyles”. Funny enough, incidents such as this are still occurring in the United States.
Locks were worn in past civilizations usually by men of distinction, and rarely by women. Priests and rulers were the people who were regarded highly if they were adorned by a crown of locks. Of course, locks are frequently associated with the Rastafarian culture and religion. They are the symbols of strength and wisdom – and an archive of personal history, all physically manifested in each lock. Nowadays, western culture has appropriated the style as low or sub culture, and the general stereotype that lurks with it is the idea that anyone who has locks are of a dreadful nature (hence the term “dreadlocks”) or are very untidy with no ambition to be or look like more of a “civilized” person. This is a fact – and it is so because I have experienced these assumptions first hand.
Slowly however, we are seeing mainstream culture picking the locked style up as a trend. Extensions made to look like locks are now being sold in salons and beauty shops. People of any race are now able to wear locks when they want and take them out when they would like to as well. The sense of rebellion is still strongly associated with the style in western culture, and can now be turned on and off at the consumers wish. People who have naturally locked hair are considered hip and eclectic with an edge – which is only sometimes the truth as I have learned. It’s one thing to witness cultural appropriation from the outside, but when you are apart of the movement, you see things in a totally different light.
–Samille
One of my assignments last year was to actually take an artists work and reproduce it using a different medium then the original artist. I chose to do one of Leonardo Da Vinci’s works. Well I was looking through his work, I found so many of the same image reproduced over and over. I knew I didn’t want to use the Mona Lisa once again, instead I chose to use a work of art that I hadn’t seen a lot of. An image I didn’t even know Da Vinci actually had in his collection. The work of art I reproduced was used in one my favourite movies, Ever after. And in that movie Leonardo paints an image of a woman who in the movie represents Drew Barrymore’s character. I, until I did further research thought that this image was done for the movie and wasn’t an original Da Vinci. But it is indeed one of Leonardo’s. “La Scapigilata” was the work that I chose to reproduce. I wanted other people to see the beauty of this work. I wanted to more or less honour the work instead of deface it.
After seeing image after image of the Mona Lisa, after a while seeing the image had no effect on me. Which is horrible for me because the Mona Lisa is one of my favourite works by Da Vinci. I believe in appropriation because I do it so much. But when does appropriation go to far? I believe it has gone to far, when the image holds no meaning anymore. I looked at so many reproductions of the Mona Lisa that I didn’t see the beauty that it had before. Instead I was looking at the things added instead of at the original work. The constant adding of new concepts in the work made it hard to focus on the original.
Although seeing these images did not change my mind about how much I love the original Mona Lisa, maybe it made me love the original even more.
Image Source: www.spaceandmotion.com/images/art-friend/leo
– Aimee
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1890sc_Pears_Soap_Ad.jpg)
In reaction to the lecture on Emily Carr and my comments on colonialist mandates, I just wanted to supply a more thorough theoretical framework to my argument.
I would also note, in regard to my comment about the black woman’s undomesticated sexuality, and National Geographic’s role in the sexual awakening of generations of western society, a great book one might pick up if one wished to hear more would be:
Gilman, Sander L. “Black Bodies, White Bodies: Toward an Iconography of Female Sexuality in Late Nineteenth-Century Art, Medicine, and Literature.” Race, Writing and Difference. Ed. Henry Louis Gates Jr. Chicago, 1986.
Also this one, by M. Wallace is well worth looking into; it pushes beyond the scope of my conversation, but well worth reading:
Wallace, Michelle. “Modernism, Postmodern and the Problem of the Visual in Afro-American Culture.” Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Culture. Ed. Russell Ferguson. 39-50.
I also mentioned the Hottentot Venus, who was a you Khosian Woman from southern Africa who became a main attraction in both England and France for over five years after she was taken from Cape Town in 1810 by an English ship surgeon (not Dutch naturalists, as I had stated in class) who wanted to publicly exhibit her body, for its presumed peculiarities.
Her name, Saarjite Baartman was shortened and anglicized to Sara Bartman for easier pronunciation for the audiences who flocked to see her exhibited naked in a cage at Piccadilly, England.
After her death at the age of twenty-six, scientists interested in investigating her ‘primitive sexuality’ dissected and cast her genitals in wax.
“Anatomist Georges Curvier presented Baartman’s dissected labia before the Academie Royale de Medecine, in order to allow them “to see the nature of the labia” (Gilman 235). Curvier and his contemporaries concluded that Baartman’s oversized primitive genitalia was physical proof of the African women’s “primitive sexual appetite.” Baartman’s genitalia continued to be exhibited at La Musée de l’Homme, the institution to which Curvier belonged, long after her death.”
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Exhibition.htmlNational Geographic, Emily Carr and the case of Sara Bartman all display, in varying degrees, the same history of colonialist ideals allocating the use of people of color to demonstrate the cultural differences and otherness that were connected to the ‘native’ as a platform for display. This would in turn promote western colonial domination by constructing non-white cultures as being in need of regulation, and development.
-candace couse
“Good morning, Mona Lisa”(and other musings on dialogue based art)
|
Starbucks with Mona Lisa Wall Poster
I see two distinctly different sub categories when one engages with art that is intended to be ‘dialogue based’. The first is work that directly and immediately requires an active and participatory audience. This kind of audience-art relationship is present most often in performance based art, such as Yoko Ono’s “cut piece” or in the infamous work of Marina Abramovic, ‘Rhythm 0’, in which Abramovic presented seventy-two objects of destructiveness (razor blades, loaded gun, knitting needles) and gave them to the audience to use on her as they saw fit.
This first category is self explanatory; the audiences are unmistakably and actively participating in the peices, and are indeed required for them to transpire. Without the audience, there would be no performance and therefore no result. Enough said.
The second sub category, -as I perceive such a difference- requires an audience as a catalyst in order for the art to be transformed into its intended function.
An example? |
Tony Oursler, prince to the post-human empire, second in command to Matthew Barney.
Well, that might be a title only recently imposed by…Ahem, me.
Regardless, he is an excellent model of what I’m talking about. Here is a great example of interaction vs. collaboration in audience-art dialogue. Oursler creates post human projections of autonomous cyber creatures that gurgle and coo like human-baby-cyborg-animal hybrids. Unlike Ono or Abramovic, Oursler’s work would still exists even if no one was around to see it. And I’m sure it would still make noise, even if no one was there to hear it too.
Yes, I know the same could be said of our dear friend Mona Lisa, but don’t get too far ahead of me.
The thing that makes it dialogue based art, is that it requires an audience to be transformed into its intended function. Oursler’s post human hybrids appeal to out humanity. They are communicative, and require their messages to be received to complete their transaction. Without this interaction, this transformation, the work is very similar to a radio being left on in an empty room. It is in a constant state of flux, but requires a specific reaction from a live and present audience to complete the connection.
If a human audience neglects or is not present to respond on a human level to the pieces, then they remain fabricated and synthetic.
-Candace Couse
November 6, 2007.
Augusto Boal’s “Invisible Theatre”
Today we discussed several artists and different contemporary art forms. What has stuck out for me is the idea of performative art. I fell that pieces like Yoko Ono’s “Cutting Piece” is a very creative form of artistic impression, and what I find to have even more impact is the way she gets the audience involved, thus confusing the idea of authorship. This also goes for David Rokeby, where he creates photos out of human beings. Is he the author, or are those participating the authors? He is not only using the people to create a picture, but he is appropriating images that already exist as well. This form of art reminded me of a form of performative art seen in drama. I would like to discuss Augusto Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed and Invisible Theatre. Augusto Boal is an innovative and influential theatrical director, writer and politician. He is the founder of Theatre of the Oppressed which is a political theatrical form originally used in radical popular education movements. Theatre of the Oppressed is also system of games and special techniques that aims at developing, in the oppressed citizens, the language of the theatre, which is the essential human language. From Theatre of the Oppressed came Invisible Theatre, a political activity where the main goal was to establish dialogue among Indigenous Nations and Spanish descendants, in Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico. This form of theatre is meant to be practiced by, about and for the oppressed, to help them fight against their oppressions and to transform the society that engenders those oppressions.
Augusto Boal is a key dramatic and political figure who created a form of art that also involves the audience however, instead of there being a line between audience and performer, the audience becomes the performer, thus confusing the authorship of the play. Basically what Invisible Theatre is, and why I think it is so relevant to this discussion is that there are actors, maybe 3or 4, which go out into public and create a scene. They act as if they do not know each other, but are able to create a problem, usually dealing with politics, and get the rest of the population involved so that everyone is able to speak their mind without knowing that actors sparked the situation. Soon the general public take over the debate as the actors slowly fade away, where now the people that were once looking become the doers and the actors that were acting are now the viewers. I think this type of theatre can be very controversial because the idea of authorship is confused. Who is the author in this type of scenario? The actors begin but once the public takes over, are they then considered to be the authors as they are creating their own dialogue there on the spot? I think this form of performative art would be interesting to witness; it is a collaborative form of art that causes political debates and creates awareness of the oppressed. It is also very controversial as the audience does not realize they are apart of the performance. Does this make this type of performance morally wrong? Is it fair to have people participate in something that they are not aware of or consenting to? I feel that that is the very beauty of this type of theatre. To be heard without knowing it, to be seen without expecting it. Perhaps we need this form of theatre to allow us or rather force us to voice our opinion.
–Laura
October 10, 2007
Photomontage in the Digital Age
Today we discussed several aspects about Avant-garde and renaissance painting. We also focused on collage, assemblage, papier colle and decollage. What I found to be an interesting form of art that became important around the 1850’s is photomontage which is collage using photography. I found a lot of the examples to be impactful, however I could not help but relate this form of art to how it may be represented today. Now, with the help of digital technology, photomontage is able to go in a different direction. Now it’s not just about a camera, but cameras and computers. This type of work can be seen in photosynth. Photosynth Technology Preview is the newest way to view photos on a computer. Photosynth is when software is used to take a large collection of photos of a place or an object, analyze them for similarities, and then display them in a reconstructed three-dimensional space, showing you how each one relates to the next. You can access gigabytes of photos in seconds, view a scene from nearly any angle, find similar photos with a single click, and zoom in to make the smallest detail as big as your monitor. There are a lot of issues with photosynth as there are with photomontage. There is a clear question of appropriation and authorship. Like photomontage, photosynth is a collection of pictures put together to create a new 3D image with new meaning. Like photomontage, photosynth is controversial because the pictures are taken from different sources or authors and are not the original work of the creator. Also the final article created at the end of photosynth, often resembles an object that is also not original. I have included a video so that you get a better idea of what I mean. Click on this site to view an explanation of photosynth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p16frKJLVi0This video focuses on St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. As someone that has seen St. Peter’s Basilica first hand, I can truly appreciate this work of art. I find it not only compliments the Basilica as art but it is also helpful at looking at the minor details of the Basilica that would perhaps go unrecognized or unnoticed. It would be especially beneficial to people who have not been to the Basilica, because it allows them to see the detail of the architecture of St. Peters Basilica.
In one of my other courses we have been discussing plagiarism, and from the reading “Utopian Plagiarism, Hypertextuality and Electronic Cultural Production” by Critical Art Ensemble, I would like to discuss a quote. “One of the main goals of the plagiarist is to restore the dynamic and unstable drift of meaning, by appropriating and recombining fragments of culture.” Many may think that photosynth may seem like a form of plagiarism; someone stealing others photos and making them seem like their own. I don’t see it this way. I see it as a creation of art, where you are able to appreciate all the elements that make it whole. They are combining fragments of culture, in this case St. Peters Basilica, and making it more accessible. They are not changing its meaning or taking away from the original photographs, they are using what people have put forth as public property and through the use of their own creative talent, creating something new. Like photomontage, they are building something new out of something old. If anything, they are paying homage to the originals and to the structure itself by giving different perspectives and close-ups.
Laura
Looking at some of Asger Jorn’s work in class, and reading his manifesto on Detourned Painting, reminded me of another contemporary artist doing many of the same things Jorn’s writing speaks of. Semi-anonymous artist known by the pseudonym ‘Banksy’ is probably best known for his street stencils and grafitti in and around Bristol U.K., but has also staged exhitibions; both legal (Barely Legal in L.A. last fall) and illegal (sneaking works into the Tate Modern, MoMA, and the Metropolitan, and Disneyland) across several continents.
I first saw a series of detourned paintings he did while looking for an unrelated photo of a stencil he did of two British ‘Bobby’s’ kissing on Banksy’s website. While flipping through some of his current works, I saw several paintings I recognized (Constable, Gainsborough, Monet, etc) with some obviously out of place additions: rusted out cars, a tower of surveilance cameras, and shopping carts. I went back and looked at these again after seeing Jorn’s work and definitely saw some similarities, but there were also some glaring differences.
Image Source: http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/images/oils/crudeoil.jpg
I like the idea that Jorn puts forth in his article that there is nothing original left in painting, so don’t even bother creating something new. At first there seemed to be something unnatural or even ‘unholy’ (if you consider the artist as hero or of mythic statue) about painting overtop of what are widely accepted as masterpieces. After reading the manifesto a few times, and looking at some examples online, it doesn’t seem quite so foreign.
Banksy paints overtop of these canvases in the same way as Jorn, and completely embodies many of the statements made in Jorn’s Manifesto on Detourned Painting. Banksy “detourn’s them so they correspond with his era” by additing images of modern life on top of the originals.
Image Source: http://www.banksy.co.uk/indoors/images/oils/waterlilies.jpg
And you may be wondering about the title of the post. Banksy’s work has been bringing pretty good prices at auction and several Hollywood types have professed their love for Banksy, including Mr. and Mrs. Pitt-Jolie.
For those interested, here’s Banksy’s website: http://www.banksy.co.uk
-Matt Finn.
(Sorry about the image sizes, I don’t know enough about writing code to re-size them)
I’ve been trying to look for artists that are challenging the role of the artist and/or author. During the past few weeks I’ve also noticed a correlation between 3V95 and 3F96 (which is Interdisciplinary studio) in regards to talking about innovative artists, both past and present, that literally think outside of the box.
Mark Kostabi was mentioned briefly in my 3F96 class and how his method of operation included having other people create painted works for him, but they would be exhibited and sold under his name. In his bio on his web site ( ) these people are called “painting assistants.” I’ve tried to look for more information on his own site about how he gets “his” work done, but he seems to write more freely about other artists and other people (see “shout articles”). After looking for more insight online, I came across reviews of his work that he wrote himself – but barely anything by anyone else.
Continuing on the idea that he has other painters paint his own work (assuming that this is in fact how he produces a product), what within the whole process would constitute the final product being an original Kostabi? Is it an original because he produced the idea and theme? At this point, I’m still trying to figure out if he even contributes this much, aside from his signature. But staying with the assumption that he does create the idea in itself – is that enough to claim authorship over a work of art if you didn’t lift a finger? Are we now at a stage in art culture where the craft and effort behind a product is no longer seen as a hallmark of an authentic artist? In my opinion, the path we’re on is quite similar to the corporate world where consumerism thrives on namebrands and corporate logos. Who wants a pair of sneakers with a normal checkmark, when you can get a Nike swoosh? The “no-name” brand of food use to be an honest company that stood behind their product and not a name. Nowadays, the “No-Name” moniker has become a brand itself, the company has expanded, and the faces behind it all are no longer known – or even important.
Should this be the fate of the art world; will we still continue to cherish traditional art of the past? Renaissance men, will we still remember and respect their achievements? The Mona Lisa? The ceilings of the Sistine Chapel? The likes of Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, Munch, Van Gogh, Monet – will they soon be overlooked? I feel the art world without a rich and vibrant past is not much to boast about in the least. However, highlighting two of the artists I mentioned: Leonardo and Munch, both their works – The Mona Lisa and The Scream – are very well known and almost marketed today as brand all on their own. How did these two men, so long deceased, maintain their dignity as artists and not fall victim to the phantom author effect that many artists do today? Why aren’t we giving more recognition to people who commissioned the paintings as the author (not limiting to just the two works aforementioned)? Would Mark Kostabi fit the criteria of one who commissions paintings rather than one to claim authorship?
I feel the need to ask these questions because I’m not sure how to go about answering them myself – I hope that perhaps before semester’s end we can discuss what we think about artists who create in such a manner. Kostabi grew up as an artist, however he recognized the market he had to compete with and found a solution. Again, I’m not certain if this is for sure his method of operation, and I hope anyone that knows more could share. After not having much luck, I can only speculate, as I have above.
– Samille
While working on a seminar for another class this term, I found myself searching for some images relating to Cologne Dada and Max Ernst in particular. Unable to find a complete catelogue of his works, I wondered whether he painted a self portrait at any point in his career. Running a simple Google image search for “Max Ernst self portrait” led to a website (www.soho-art.com) which contained some brief biographical information on Ernst, and a collection of his works. Thinking I had finally found what I was looking for, I scrolled down to see if there was a self portrait among the list, when I saw price tags attached to each of the paintings. Not in the range one would expect to pay for Ernst’s works, but ranging from $225 – $350 (Still not sure if that includes shipping…)
Image Source: http://www.soho-art.com/shopinfo/uploads/1123467078_large-image_mxesp09lg.jpg
Maybe I should have just bought it, I’m sure it would have impressed in my seminar presentation.
I was blown away. After clicking around the site a little more (and considered buying a Rothko or Basquiat to impress my friends), I realized that the entire purpose of this website was to provide low cost, reproduction oil paintings to hang over your piano, or on the wall of your den.
Obviously, this raises some very big questions about authorship and apropriation. Some art student somewhere (I suspect nowhere near NYC, and probably not even knowing what SoHo means) has spent years schooling in his craft, only to create knockoffs for everyday folks doing some redecorating, or I might suspect, cheap yuppies unable or unwilling to drop serious money on an original. To me, this is a fairly blatent attack on the contemporary art world as a whole, and shows little respect for the artistic past. I very much doubt that any of the estates of the artists being copied are being compensated for the use of their original images.
I can’t even begin to imagine anyone serious ordering a painting from this site, but I still found this site more puzzling than anything else. Apparantly they have been in business for several years, seemingly without any legal run-ins. Definitely one of my stranger finds as of late.
Check it out for yourself: http://www.soho-art.com
-Matt Finn.
