Homework 9

The "Copy Rights" article intertwines with Steal Like an Artist because much of what Kleon was talking about in Steal revolved around how it's okay to "steal" from an artist you admire, and that there's a difference between doing that and blatant plagiarism. The article mentions how that frame of reference has begun to butt heads with the notoriously litigious American copyright law system in recent years, specifically art, and how the attempt to find middle ground has come along.

Artists who appropriate are in both an advantageous and disadvantageous position as compared to those from centuries earlier. On one hand, work is easier to discover than ever, and consequently it is easier than ever to appropriate work. On the other hand, artists who have their work appropriated are subsequently more able to provide proof of their work being stolen/taken/sampled/appropriated with digital time stamps, electronic complaints in regards to it, etc.

Marcel Duchamp (Which of course in his native French is translated as "From Champ",) has another famous example of appropriating, which is the L.H.O.O.Q., a recreation of the Mona Lisa with a penciled in vaudevillian moustache and chin strap painter beard penciled in. The title is also a French-based pun, not unlike my hilarious example in the aside at the top of this paragraph.

The difference between "high art" and "low art" seems to be more based on perception than anything else. High art has a greater aesthetic emphasis placed on it, while low art is based more on more widespread accessibility and understanding. I think there are examples of what I would consider to be "low art" being appropriations of high art, in particular the Richard Prince "paintings" we discussed in an earlier homework and that the article mentions as well. I'd consider that low art because it featured deliberately crude additions to someone else's higher art.

For me personally, I find "appropriation" more in line with the term "homage" in modern culture, which tends to see someone replicating or nearly replicating someone else's work under the guise of respect or tribute. Sampling, at least in music where it is used the most often, is more of acknowledging a piece of work that is someone else's, giving proper compensation for it monetary wise, and then incorporating your own work around it.

I'm fine with Walker being a white person commentating on this type of subject matter, because I believe limiting an artist's ability based on their race is a very slippery slope and unnecessarily restricting. I'm also fine with the works themselves. I do think that Walker added enough of his own stamp on the established work, and that they make enough sense with provided context, for it to be labeled as individually creative.

I suppose I agree with Lichtenstein's feelings towards reappropriation, although that's a bit of a cynical/narrow way of viewing it, kind of along the lines of someone who says that everything is art. Perhaps technically everything can be appropriated, but only a few people can appropriate a select few things and make it into worthwhile art.

From the list I chose Sherrie Levine, because I really was interested in how she was borderline parallel to the aforementioned Prince, who I previously described as being akin to a tick on the neck of human life. The biggest difference to me is that unlike Prince, Levine seemed to have somewhat of a sense of human compassion, because after she "appropriated" the Walker Evans photos and was chastised for it by the Evans estate, she at least gave all proceeds from her work to the estate. But even so, I still find myself amazed at the success of artists who take others work and put in (sometimes literally) no effort into their "appropriation" and are still able to become rich beyond my wildest dreams.