You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2007.
As we finish up this semester of discussing appropriation, perhaps it would be timely to discuss an element of our society that has been appropriated and re-appropriated numerous times – to the point where very few people acknowledge the original foundations and contexts: the celebrations surrounding December 25.
For most of us who celebrate Christmas, the idea conjures up a collection of pleasant images. Christmas stimulates thoughts of family gathered around a decorated tree, of music and light and the comforting smell of a special dinner cooking on a snowy winter day. Carolers at the door, sleigh rides, chestnuts roasting on an open fire, and sugar plums also come into play, although almost no one today experiences any of these.
It has become commonplace for religious and other specialists to criticize what they consider the poisoning of Christmas with commercialism. Such people usually call for a return to the “real meaning” of Christmas, either as a Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth or as a spiritual celebration of “family values.”. These critiques speculate a Christmas observance from which we have fallen, in which they assume that Christmas was once a religious holiday into which the shopping mall has worked itself.
It’s interesting to remember that before the Roman Empire was “Christianized”, the holiday was not celebrated. In order to appease the communities being overthrown, Church leaders appropriated the traditional pagan celebrations around the time of the winter solstice. While there was absolutely no scriptural basis for celebrating the birth of Jesus at all, let alone in December, this presented itself a convenient vehicle by which the Church could use a pagan holiday for Christian motive.
During the early settlement of the United States, the celebration of Christmas was actually banned by the Puritans who took offense to the excessive drinking, and gluttony of the adults, and permitted begging by children that were associated with the holiday’s pagan roots.
So as we head home to celebrate the birth of Jesus, Chanukah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, or whichever groups appropriation of the atmospheric phenomenon of the shortest days of the year we subscribe to, let us not forget what it is that we are indeed celebrating…
now, what is it that we are celebrating again?
happy holidays!
jennifer
In class we learned that parody uses humour and satire to construct a new image or idea by retaining or using elements of a pre-existing cultural artifact.
I think that General Ideas Shut the Fuck Up is a great example of parody:
http://videoart.virtualmuseum.ca/artist.php?id=11§ion=clip
The clip on the right is the example that I will be speaking of in this blog entry. In this clip, General Idea uses elements directly related to Yves Klein’s Anthropométries de l’Epoque bleue (Anthropometries of the Blue Period) in Klein’s original piece, the Monotone Symphony was performed while Klein had three nude models cover themselves in blue paint and affix their body prints on the white papers, laid out on the gallery walls and floor.
After ‘setting the stage’ with what has been constructed to appear as a news report of Klein’s work, General Idea’s response to this work uses symphonic background music, the copywrited ‘International Klein Blue’ and large white canvasses to generate a critique of the legitimacy of hype surrounding the arts.
I think that this example serves as an illustration of the distinction between appropriation and stealing that we discussed in our last class: the humour of General Ideas work is directly dependant on the audience’s knowledge of Klein’s work and the propaganda surrounding it.
As with much appropriation; if you are unaware of the elements that have been appropriated and their independent history the joke doesn’t make sense. General Idea’s use of Klein’s work is not intended to result in their being given credit for the monotone pieces. Conversely, they perhaps are looking for the recognition of Not being the artist who came up with the idea 
.
Jennifer
Cover versions are an interesting breed… How much more of an example of direct appropriation can exist than one artist literally using another’s words? I had a slightly challenging time trying to decide what type of cover to use in this reflection – then I realized that perhaps the variations in covers are part of the ‘point’.
In My opinion, (and really, what else is a blog??), I think that cover versions performed at a concert, never to be released are the most ‘legitimate’ version. For example; at a David Usher concert I attended in 2003, he performed Pink’s “I’m Coming Up” to the tune of Ozzy Osbourne’s Crazy Train (a double appropriation?). Concert venue covers that are never recorded present a fun, ephemeral offering to the crowd – a token memory for the people who shelled out the time and cash to go see the artist perform, as opposed to staying home and downloading from thepiratebay.com .
An example of cover version appropriation that I love to hate is The Nylons. For those of you who don’t know, The Nylons are a Canada’s longest running (yes, that is a pun) a cappella group. Most of The Nylons 29 year discography is in the form of a-cappella rework of pre-existing music. In this case, the appropriation is not used as parody or critique; it is just what they do. This specific example seems problematic, as although they do not attempt to reference the music as their own, understanding of the performance does not rely on knowledge that the songs are in fact someone else’s.
Finally, Alanis Morisette’s cover of The Black Eyed Peas “My Humps” seems to demonstrate what we as a class have acknowledged to be suitable use of appropriation; use of another’s content for social critique. Morisette uses not only the lyrics of the original but also the basic elements of the video to construct a criticism of females in popular music. It is also interesting to note that Morisette’s video was released directly to youtube, thereby using the platform’s reputation of independence and analysis to increase the authority of her own offering.
Alanis Morisette – My Humps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g
Black Eyed Peas – My Humps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZc7j6A230
(and for those of you who have never seen The Nylons)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXfR9okzLcE
Jennifer
Richard Prince
Richard Prince Untitled (Cowboy) 1989, Ektacolor print, 50 x 70 inches fgsd
“There wasn’t really a plan. I’ve never been included in any photography based survey, museum show, photo magazine. I’ve heard that Peter Galassi hates my work. That he would never acknowledge it in the photo department at MoMA. I think he’s wrong. I think my photo work is all about photography. But there was never an idea about where the work was going at the beginning when I started to re-photograph images. When you don’t have any training in a particular medium you can bring something to it that hasn’t been brung (sic). I “brung” the sheriff and I shot him. I killed photography. Maybe they hated that.. I always look for my name in Photography mags but I never see it. Maybe I should have “rescued” photography.” –Richard Prince from an on-going unpublished email interview with Brian Appel, Sept, 26th, 2005, www.artcritical.com
Richard Prince is an American artist best known for his re-photographed photograph Untitled (Cowboy), 1984. The original photograph was part of a marketing campaign for the “Marlboro Man”, a character recurring for many years in advertisements for Marlboro cigarettes. His works have often been the subject of debates within the art world for both their obvious use of appropriation and for the numbers the fetch at auction. In fact, Untitled (Cowboy) was the first photograph to raise more than one million at auction when it was sold at Christie’s New York in 2005.
Prince has also created controversy by re-photographing four photographs which previously appeared in the New York Times, and as with the art of Sherri Levine, anytime you are photographing photographs, controversy and dialogue concerning authorship and authenticity are bound to fight their way into the spotlight. Prince has also found himself in the center of many legal battles around photographic copyright issues.
Dara Birnbaum
Dara Birnbaum is an American video artist who is perhaps most famous for her provocative and influential contributions to the contemporary discourse on art and popular culture. Through video works and multi media installations, Birnbaum subverts, critiques and deconstructs hegemony of mass media images and gestures to confront the mythologies of culture and history. If we define appropriation as an act that takes possession of another’s imagery or idea, often without permission, then Dara Birnbaum fits the bill.
[Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman, 1978-79, video, Electronic Arts Intermix, NY.]
In her video Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman, Dara Birnbaum created one of the first examples of appropriation imagery from mainstream television, something that is now quite common. Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman, features, as one might expect, Wonder Woman, the main character of the prime-time television programm of the same name which was based on an action-adventure comic book. Using actual sceans from the series, Birnbaum “plung[es] the viewer headlong into the ver experience of TV- unveiling TV’s steriotypical gestures of power and submission, of male and female egos.” – http://www.eai.org/eai/artist.jsp?artistID=430
Birnbaum isolates and repeats the moments of the ‘real’ womans transformation into superhero. In doing so, Birnabaum is subverting its meaning within the television context. She is also appropriating televison filming conventions to deconstruct the idiomatic meaning of televisions structural codes, she uses these to anayze the syntax and gestures of what Birnbaum calls “TV treatmeant”.
On Birnbaum’s “TV treatmeant” in, General Hospital/Olympic Women Speed Skating, 1980, 6 min, colour: “in this case, the cross-cut and the reverse shot. The “cross-over” in an Olympic women’s speed skating race is juxtaposed with daytime drama General Hospital’s “whites” in reverse angle shots. A couple tries to reach an understanding. Skaters continuously return to the starting line. Frustration and exertion combine with originally scored soundtracks of disco, rock and jazz. The female soap opera character’s emotional stress, her gestures and rhetoric of paranoia and self-doubt are countered with the pure physical performance of the female sports figures.” -http://www.eai.org/eai/tape.jsp?itemID=2713
candace
In thinking about some of the themes and theories we talked about over the course of this term, I started to reconsider what some of my thoughts were regarding issues of appropriation. It was always something I was aware of, but was never really certain what some of the reasons behind it were, or what it meant. I’m certain that the way I think about and look at art will be affected by some of things we’ve talked about in this class. My definition for what appropriation is, and what an author is have changed dramatically.
I recently read an essay that was extremely critical of Shepherd Fairey’s OBEY campaign, and his exhibition that is now on in Los Angeles. The main critique was that Fairey had plagiarized most of the works he was displaying in this show. If anyone is familiar with his style, he has built a small empire on using images of war and propaganda to comment on the culture of fear and media saturation we live in. These works most often take the form of stencils and posters, put up guerilla style around major urban centers.
I couldn’t believe just how angry the author was about what he thought of as Fairey’s career being built on stealing, when, as we have seen, artists from all eras have used the art created before them to make new works.
I think this has a lot to do with the relationship between art and commerce. Artists of any stripe can and should appropriate. T-shirt and coffee mug salesman should not. The art of making art with appropriated materials will change the original meaning behind them, even if the physical change of the appropriated object is not dramatic. The act of appropriating an image to sell something will always be different than the act of appropriating an image to say something.
This is the article: http://www.art-for-a-change.com/Obey/index.htm
This is Shepherd Fairey’s OBEY campaign site: http://obeygiant.com/main.php/
– Matt
OK – this is the last time I will write about Richard Prince. Well, maybe.
My first blog entry, and the focus of my essay for this class was on Richard Prince’s Nurse Paintings, one of the few works of art that I could identify as ‘appropriation’ before this class began. While I was looking for resources to write my essay, I came across a YouTube clip that seemingly had nothing to do with what I was looking for, but was tagged with ‘Richard Prince’ and ‘Nurse paintings’. The clip comes from the Summer 2008 Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton fashion show.
The clip can be seen here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcOMsz8f3og
Prince collaborated with Jacobs to present a new collection of handbags. Jacobs dressed the models in white nurse uniforms and hats, with semi-translucent surgical masks covering their mouths, a direct reference to Prince’s paintings. Prince also inspired the bags these models were carrying. Jacobs printed some of Prince’s ‘Joke Paintings’ on the outside of the Louis Vuitton bags.
While this cannot be considered ‘true’ appropriation (Prince would undoubtedly have collaborated with Jacobs, and given his permission for his work to be used), it is a second appropriation of Prince’s original appropriation of the covers of pulp fiction novels. I think that this multi-level appropriation adds even more meaning to the work. In his paintings, he transformed highly sexualized nurses into supposedly non-sexual figures covered in filth and dirt. Jacobs takes these nurses and cleans them up, dressing them up in crisp white. The nurses were now portrayed by supermodels, another huge step away from what they originally were.
– Matt
One of the topics I have had trouble with through this entire course has been the idea that an entire style can be appropriated. This became even clearer to me while beginning to study for my Modern Art exam last week, where I found multiple references to artists appropriating a style and making it their own. From what I have seen, new artists appropriate a style from the artists that came before them. No matter how original they claim to be, there are still elements of the style that came before. This process seems to be inevitable for any facet of the arts. Even as I am writing this, I know that the logical conclusion of this idea would be in a question like “is all art appropriated?”
Even after taking this course and studying the theories behind appropriation, it’s still a murky grey area for me. Art doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and artists are constantly inspired and influenced by the art that comes before them, but at the same time, you can point to almost any major artist of the past century, especially those representing the avant-garde, and see how styles developed and were changed over time.
The one example I can think of is the influence of Gauguin on Matisse and the Fauves, who influenced the abstraction of Kandinsky, whose ideas were extended by the Abstract Expressionists. While the art of Gauguin looks nothing like that of Pollock or de Kooning, the ideas and theories of Gauguin were passed through several filters in order to reach its final destination.
–Matt
We were talking about Hitler in my European avant-garde class and the artist John Heartfield came to mind. I had learned about Heartfield last year and I remembered how he would use appropriated images to make his art, which commented on the politics of his time. His most famous work was produced in Germany during the1920s and 30s. He used photomontage to create his posters, which usually made a strong statement. Much of his work reflects his early interest in Dada and communism. His work was generally mass-produced in poster form or in newspapers and magazines. It stands as evidence of the rise in the influence of the mass media at this time and of the powerful relationship it had with politics. Much of Heartfield’s work shows a clever and sharp response to significant events of the era.
Heartfield would take images from the media, re-contextualizing them creating his own image. He focused his work on the politics of Adolph Hitler. With these images Heartfeild would create very powerful yet humorous photomontages pointing out the many problems with Hitler. He felt his artwork was the best way he could voice himself and criticize what was going on in Germany at the time. In the picture below we can see Heartfield’s 1936 piece Have no fear – He’s a vegetarian. The bird symbolizes France and the man in the left hand corner is Label, the premiere of France. The image is suggesting that Hitler cannot be trusted. Heartfield continued to make many images just like this one. His use of photography had such an impact that Hitler eventually put out an arrest for him causing him to flee from Germany.
I like Heartfield’s work because it was cutting edge at the time. Not a lot of people were experimenting with photomontage or collage during this time period. Heartfeild managed to use this medium in an artistic sense as well as make strong political statements that really caught the eye of the viewer. I think his work can be compared to advertisments in that it uses witty remarks and strong visuals to attract an audience. Today this type of artwork is very common. The idea of manipulating images has only been further developed. With programs like Photoshop anyone can experiment with photography. Heartfield was one of the first artists to use images from the media and recontextualize them. He definitely started a craze that will only continue to grow especially with the technology available today.
John Heartfield, Have No Fear — He’s a Vegetarian, 1936
Another example of Heartfields work:
John Heartfield, Adolph the Superman, July 1932
-Allison
I really enjoyed lecture on Tuesday. Jean Bridge explored many different artists who have been changing the way we look at art by doing innovative things that no one has ever done before. One artist I wanted to discuss further is Yoko Ono. The artwork that Yoko made in the early 1960’s required the viewer to become apart of the process. She made a series of works called “Instruction Paintings”. These pieces consisted of a set of instructions, which were displayed on a wall just as paintings in a gallery would be. The piece we discussed in class was called ‘Cut Piece’. Audience members were invited up on stage to cut pieces of clothing off Yoko’s body. Audience members were left in control of the performance as Yoko left the process in the hands of complete strangers. I think this type of work not only questions the idea of authorship but the idea of the artist and the audience. These pieces require more then one person for the piece to be experienced. The artist becomes the artwork. Yoko put her body on display and allowed people to manipulate her instead of material objects. In doing this Yoko was trying to get people to think about art in new ways. Maybe she was trying to bring out the creativity in her audience by allowing them take on the role of the artist. Whatever her goal was she questioned the idea of authorship, which I believe, challenges the idea of art. Art and Artist have always been hand in hand, equal in importance. Yoko removes this element from her conceptual pieces, which makes them harder for people to understand them as art.
Yoko Ono, Painting to Hammer a Nail, 1966 (photo by: David Behl)
Another piece similar to Yoko’s ‘Cut piece’ would be ‘Painting to Hammer a Nail’. This piece allowed spectators to hammer a nail into a canvas anywhere or any way they chose to. This allowed the spectator to become the artist and to become apart of the work. Not only was the finished board of nails a collaborative piece of art but the very act of hammering a nail into the board became the art. ‘Ceiling Painting’ is another example of this type of work. The viewer is invited to climb a ladder. At the top of the ladder there is a magnifying glass attached by a chain hanging from the ceiling. The viewer is supposed to use the magnifying glass to read the painting hung on the ceiling only to find the word “Y E S.” In this piece the viewer is not actually contributing to the making of the piece but is taking part in it rather than merely viewing it from a distance. I like Yoko Ono’s work because she always tries to incorporate her viewers into her pieces. This type of interactive art does question authorship in a sense but I think in Yoko’s case her work is more about the process rather then the finished product. She develops an idea and then lets others take control.
“What I’m trying to do is make something happen by throwing a pebble into the water and creating ripples…I don’t want to control the ripples.”
-Yoko Ono
Yoko Ono, Ceiling Painting (YES Painting), 1966
Text on paper, glass, metal frame, metal chain, and painting ladder
Photo by: Oded Lobl
-Allison
Appropriation in my own words is the use of ideas from another source. Taking element of another artists work and creating new work. Taking something that someone else has done and using it your own way. With the use of appropriation you cannot erase the original meaning. When artisits take a work of art and use it in their own work, it always holds a part of the original work. Appropriation comes in forms of artwork, speech, tattoo’s, advertising, music, photography and many more things.
Appropriation, in my opinion isn’t always confrontational or oppositional. Although with the avant-garde movement used appropriation to protest art. But I think now, although it is still used in protest. It is often used to honour other artists work. I use appropriation in my own work. I get some of my own ideas from other artists. In my own work, the original work is always present. But is never used against the artists, in protest.
The difference between appropriation and plagerism is that plagerism is the use of someone elses work, word for word. Plagerism hides the fact that it is taken from someone elses work. Appropriation honours the original work and the original artist is known and honoured through their work. Plagerism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work
When making art we draw on past experiences and subconsciously take elements of other works of art. Just as musicians make music based on other songs they have heard before. An example of this can be seen with Avril Lavigne’s recent hit “Girlfriend” which has a strong resemblance to The Rubinoos’ 1979 single “I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend”. The Rubinoos’ single repeats the chorus in “Hey hey, you you, I wanna be your boyfriend” similar to Avril’s “Hey hey, you you, I want to be your girlfriend” in “Girlfriend”. Could this be an act of plagiarism? Could this be some sort of appropriation? Perhaps this could be an act of the subconscious. There have been numerous cases like this one over the years. I will admit I am even guilty of this just as I am sure most people are. Someone tells you an idea and as time passes you remember this idea and truly believe belongs to you. Everyday we are stimulated by visual culture, music, news, television, books, lectures at school, and shifts at work. We are exposed to so much information that it sometimes affects the things we create. The art world tends to ignore conscious and unconscious plagiarism. Do you believe this is a possibility to the many cases of “similarity” in songs and works of art that have been discovered? Do you believe people should be punished for this? There seems to be a fine line between appropriation and plagiarism these days. A line that has possibly become a little too fine. And if this line is crossed you could end up with a pretty hefty lawsuit on your hands just like Avril did.
Check out these links and see what you think:
-Allison
Appropriation gone Bad…
I discovered another example of appropriation that is quite often seen today on the shoulders of girls all over North America.
FAKE DESIGNER BAGS!
Not just purses but wallets, jewelry, key chains and clothing. A few years ago I traveled to New York City with some friends. We decided to spend one of our afternoons in China Town. We had heard stories of knock off Louis Vutton and Channel accessories being sold for more than affordable prices. We all left China Town that evening each sporting a Louis Vutton purse in every colour of the rainbow along with matching wallets. At first I was quite pleased with my purchase but as the days past I realized that I was wearing something that was stolen. It was stolen in a sense that it was not really a Louis Vutton purse but a cheaply made handbag made to look like it was worthy of the hundreds of dollars the real ones are sold for. Who was I trying to kid? No one would believe that I could afford real designer bag especially because half the girls I went to school with had the exact same one.
I didn’t know what was worse… selling these fake designer bags for money or someone like me who was buying them. These people are appropriating the image of the expensive designer look in a way, which is not legal or acceptable. At the same time middle class women are buying these designer items only to appropriate the upper class life style. I didn’t purchase my Louis Vutton purse because I liked the way it looked but because I liked what it represented. By carrying around this little handbag I was telling the world I had money to spare, which was not the case at all. By the time I returned home I had decided to give away my appropriated aristocracy and spend my money on things that were a little bit more important.
After last lecture I really wanted to devote my last three posts to exploring appropriation in different ways. After taking this course I have come to realize that appropriation can be found all around us. I’ve become quite interested in how appropriation causes controversy and how it is used as a reflection of society.
For example, Ruth Handle invented The Barbie doll in 1959. She named the doll after her daughter, Barbara. Barbie was first introduced to the world at the American Toy Fair in New York City. The doll was intended for little girls to dress up and play with.
Okay so what exactly does this have to do with authorship an appropriation? Well let’s start from the very beginning. Dolls, figurines and most toys are appropriations in themselves as they mimic real life. Dolls are miniature replications of women for little girls to dress up and play with. Well in 1959 that all changed. The Barbie doll was available to young children and she became much more than just a doll.
Before we get into the Barbie craze we must understand her roots. The Barbie doll is an appropriation based on a German doll called Bild Lilli. The Bild Lilli Doll was a German fashion doll produced in the early 1950s. The doll was an appropriation based on the comic-strip character created by Reinhard Beuthien for a comic book entitled Bild-Zeitung. Mattel gained rights to the doll and began to produce the Barbie doll we know today.
Not only is Barbie herself an appropriation but she was a fashion doll who wore clothes that were styled to resemble what was in fashion in America during this time period. The controversy here was not a result of Barbie extensive wardrobe but rather Barbie’s plastic proportions. If Barbie were life sized her measurements would be an impossible 36 bust 18 waist and 38 hips.
This became so controversial because Barbie was now and idealistic icon of feminine beauty. She became to be known as the perfect women and young girls would aspire to look like their plastic pals. An appropriation was being made… women began to appropriate Barbie’s image into their own look. Thin and blonde became the new beautiful and celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and Grace Kelly reinforced this.
Sooner then later Barbie became a much more diverse doll adapting to different cultural identities and even professions. Barbie was now an ethnic woman and a working girl yet still managed to maintain her impossibly perfect 18-inch waste. There have been many lawsuits and even bands of distribution of the doll, as it formally did not conform to different ideals of beauty in other countries which inspired the creation of dolls like Fulla, an alternative to Barbie sold in Middle Eastern countries. Barbie’s Waist eventually began to widen over time and is now much bigger then it was in the 1950’s. I think this can be looked at as a reflection of today’s society, and it’s fight against the ideals of anorexicly thin girls.
Barbie is an appropriation of the German doll Bild Lilli who is an appropriation of a comic book character. Barbie later begins to appropriate modern culture as she takes on numerous occupations. Women’s rights were slowly being introduced and the dolls reflected this. Barbie also reflected the world’s racial digression as she became available in many different ethnic backgrounds. Barbie also inspired a series of films, cartoons, books, and collectable paraphernalia. Finally Barbie inspired the future of plastic dolls most recently a line of dolls called Bratz. These dolls have also caused much controversy for their large eyes, full lips, small noses, long thin legs and big breasts.
–Allison
