49. Appropriation Art vs. Art Appropriation vs. Forgery

What was this about? What were the goals?

This lesson mostly covers Appropriation Art. But, before we go into it, it's worth first explaining what art appropriation means, and go into a bit of its history.

Art appropriation is when an artist borrows an idea, concept, style, or motif from another artist or culture. And, just to make this more vague and confusing, a lot of people include collage with appropriation, when artists glue different things together - most commonly bits from magazines and newspapers:

Bottle of Vieux Marc, Glass, Guitar, Newspaper, by Picasso, 1913

When borrowing from another culture, it's a form of cultural appropriation, which can also encompass food, music, dance, and fashion. Examples in art include Picasso's interest in African figures and masks:

Two African masks next to details from Picasso's Les Demoiselles 'Avignon

Image found from this article on thecollector.com

...or when Claude Monet painted his wife wearing a Japanese kimono:

La Japonaise, by Claude Monet, 1876

...or when people learn to rap in foreign languages, like German, Slovak, and Chinese:

Cultural appropriation is controversial, for a few reasons. Some see it as insensitive, and at times it certainly can be:

Gucci actually tried to market this sweater... yikes!...

Other people simply see it as a form of stealing, which is a bit more illogical, for a couple reasons. For one thing, stealing is based on the legal concept of ownership. But, legally, cultures don't collectively own anything. Intellectual property is copyrighted only to specific individuals (or companies), and that copyright lasts only for a limited amount of time before it becomes part of the public domain. And, while you can copyright written work, including computer programming, along with music and film, most countries refuse to copyright fashion designs, as it's too big a headache - too many designs are too similar, etc. And, while many cook books are copyrighted, the actual food made according to the recipe isn't. 

Rick Bayles, a master chef of Mexican cuisine, from Oklahoma

Proof of ownership is one problem, another is the idea that you can claim ownership of an idea you didn't come up with yourself, just because you grew up in the same area, or have the same ethnicity. Sure, it's a part of your culture, and you should enjoy it, but why take credit for something you didn't invent yourself? It's a bit like Krylov's fable, "The Geese of Rome" (look it up).

And finally, all artists appropriate something from other artists, whether it's from their own culture, their teachers, their schools or churches, their predecessors, etc. It's a crucial component of learning. There's a famous quote attributed to Picasso, "Good artists copy, great artists steal." 

It doesn't mean that actual stealing is fine or acceptable. What he meant is that a lot of the major ideas in art: the portrait, the still-life, the historical paintings, the mythological and religious scenes - have already been done. At this point, it's amazing how many ideas have already been done, some great and some just truly awful. Trying to create something totally new and unique is nearly impossible, and has led to some absurd gimmickry: 

Jonty Hurwitz used a 3D printer to make this microscopic sculpture, that sits in the eye of a needle

Meanwhile, studying from great masters is a way to learn from them and to determine what kind of artist we want to be, so that we can find our own unique voice. I've done it too. Here are some studies I've drawn at various museums:

Clara Rubens, after a painting by Peter Paul Rubens, which he made of his daughter

Here's a study I drew of a Van Dyck painting, not sure of the title.

This is a study I made from Stan Prokopenko's Halloween Lesson in 2013

Besides this, I have also drawn from many photographs I've found on the internet - as a process of learning. But, before I show these sketches online, I ask the photographers' permission, I only post when it's granted, and I always note the original artists in my posts. Sometimes I draw a study from within my "culture" whatever that means, but often I'll study something from beyond my borders - anything that fascinates me, that I want to learn from, that I appreciate. This is healthy. And I love that others do it too. I love Slovak hip hop. I love Soft Lipa, who I posted above. Mixing together art styles from different cultures can open up so many creative possibilities. I think it can be done really well, and when it is, it's wonderful. The main point, to my mind, is that we take care to be sensitive to the feelings of others, and that we don't misrepresent a culture or their past (see my lesson on Orientalism).

So, What's Appropriation Art?

This may sound strange, but there are artists who intentionally and exactly copy the art of another artist, not by drawing or painting, but by taking photographs, or simply downloading other people's photos off of the internet, for the sake of making a philosophical point (or a political point, or even just a snarky joke). It's a form of post-modern, conceptual art. And, what's more, they usually do it without asking for permission - so, many people feel it is stealing, and this has led to many lawsuits. Another thing you should know - although you will probably find a section on appropriation art in most PoMo art history books, this wasn't a movement per se. There's no self-labeled group of Appropriation artists, and most don't see themselves as such. The closest you could get would be The Pictures Generation group of photographers (active from 1974-84), some of whom created unique art, whereas some are pariahs in the art world. Let's go over some.

The best of these photographers to my mind is Cindy Sherman, and I don't even feel comfortable adding her to this lesson, because she's been making original self-portrait photos for decades, dressing in costumes to show how society represents women in various different contexts and stereotypes (I will discuss her work further in my lesson on Feminist Art). She appropriates ideas from film and fashion, etc., but she's not copying anyone else:

Untitled no. 92, by Cindy Sherman, 1981

Then there's Sherrie Levine. She has taken photos of other people's photos - from professional photographers, like Walker Evans, Eliot Porter, and Edward Weston. Her photos look exactly like the originals, but she called it her art, and sold it as her own art, even though everyone recognized them as famous works by other photographers: 

After Walker Evans: 4, by Sherrie Levine, 1981

This is her photo of a photo by Walker Evans, titled Alabama Tenant Farmer's Wife, 1936

In addition, she's also remade some artworks from famous historical male artists such as Degas, Brancusi and Duchamp - with some slight changes:

Fountain, Sherrie Levine's 1991 Urinal, after Marcel Duchamp, 

Apparently, her reasoning is that certain images from mass culture get used in fine art all the time and we consider it normal, so why was it socially acceptable when Andy Warhol did it - with him using famous photos of Elvis and Marylin Monroe? If he could, why couldn't she? The implication was, she was being discriminated against in a male-dominated art world

Elvis I & II, by Andy Warhol

There are two answers to this question. First, as you can see above, Warhol altered the photos with block colors, and multiplications of the image in a way that many viewers have accepted as being creative and original - he is at least making an original statement. And second, even with his alterations, not all viewers accepted Warhol's art as original. The artists he appropriated from were particularly vocal, and he was sued for inappropriate use of their work. Patricia Caulfield sued him for his reproductions of her photos in 1964, and he had to pay out a large settlement. 

Sherrie Levine was luckier. Walker Evans was dead, and his descendants, rather than sue her, decided to simply buy all her reproductions to prevent them being sold and distributed out to the larger art market. Eventually, Sherrie's copies were acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. So, she avoided legal trouble, made some money, and even got museum representation out of this stunt, but it was like a kind of hostage situation - and a nightmare for Walker Evan's children.

Then there's Richard Prince, who's made an entire career out of re-photographing other people's photos. He's been sued too. He initially lost in 2011 after taking 35 photos by Patrick Cariou without permission. But Prince took it to a court of appeals where he somehow, and unfortunately won the case by arguing his versions of the photos were "transformative".

Since then, besides his many "joke paintings", Prince has recently (2014) taken a series of photos off of Instagram, from a variety of people, and all without permission, and he added snarky little comments to them, selling each of them for $90,000.. There's a great article you can read about here.

How does anyone respect copying art? Is there a valid point to any of this?

Good questions. Art historian Sarah Green made a video, The Case for Copying where she commends Levine for two reasons. Sarah says Levine's work calls into question the importance of authorship, and also questions the patriarchal power structures that allowed artists like Da Vinci and Michelangelo to flourish while so many women of genius were denied the chance to do anything outside their gender role.

Obviously, the millennia of subjugating women and denying opportunities was awful, and should have been criminal, and it's great that this oppression is now illegal in much of the world. Also, obviously, there is still much to be done to ensure equal rights to all citizens regardless of gender. So, certainly, people like Da Vinci and Michelangelo were granted certain unfair privileges. At the same time, it's worth noting many of these male artists were also persecuted at various times, at the whim of whichever rich man happened to get irritable - being male was no guarantee of safety. Da Vinci went on trial at least once in Florence. Furthermore, none of this discounts the genius of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Bernini, Rembrandt, and countless other artists. There's a reason these men rose to such status while so many millions of other men did not, and yes, some of it was luck, but the greatest luck was the gift of genius which they developed.

And this leads to the importance of authorship, which does matter, partly because these artists deserve credit, and it's our ethical duty to give that credit. But, more importantly, it greatly improves our ability to study and write about our shared human history. There have been centuries where artists were unimportant and anonymous, and therefore forgotten - the notion of signing a work was unheard of, even taboo. To think, the arrogance, the vanity of signing one's art! Sinful! This is why our history suffers such a lack of general knowledge - like how the great pyramids of Egypt were built, or Stonehenge, or who made the Great Sphinx at Ghiza (and when?), or who owned the horde at Sutton Hoo, and why was it buried? Who designed the temple at Gobekli Tepe? From whom did certain manuscript painters learn their craft and how did it develop over time? Without an appreciation for authorship, our history gets reduced to whatever items we can dig up from the ground and the tantalizing clues they provide.

One could say, hey now, wait a minute - Sherrie Levine picked some really famous photos from world-class photographers that everyone recognized at the time, so no one would be confused as to the authorship in this case. To that I say, what about future generations? People who know as little about the Great Depression as they do about Evan's photos of it. Why confuse them? When they see an Evans photo in a museum, does it really make sense to put someone else's name on it? Someone who wasn't even born during the Depression and could never have been able to photograph it? What's the benefit? And how does this promote feminism? How does this tear down the patriarchal power structure? With a lie? Why not simply show the many great women artists of history? I did it here, it wasn't so hard. It cost me nothing.

How is Appropriation Art different from forgery?

With a forgery, you try to copy a famous artwork (or paint something in the same style), and sign it with the artist's name, so people will buy it for a lot of money, thinking it's original - you're lying to them, and this is illegal. With Appropriation Art you copy the work through much simpler means - a copy machine or a camera, and you put your own name on it (or on a card next to it) hoping that the shock of this act will catapult you to fame and fortune, as you also try to sell it for a lot of money. It's still a kind of lie, and legally ambiguous. The main legal argument is, it's so obvious no one should fall for it.

How was it represented in the other arts – music, architecture, and literature?

One might say appropriation is most common in architecture; there are so many buildings that look identical - the cookie-cutter family home, the concrete block government building, the glass and steel sky scraper with the antenna on top. The anti-bellum home with Greek columns and triangle roof over the entrance. The Spanish colonial stucco home. The European style church with the floorplan like a cross. We copy endlessly in architecture because we all want the same thing, and there are so many of us out there. Truly unique buildings are hard to come by, and we remember then as being remarkable. 

Appropriation is also common in certain forms of music, especially hip-hop where artists take "samples" from other songs, films, tv shows, radio recordings, and mix them together into new beats and rhythms.

Although one might call it appropriation in literature when a writer uses a similar dynamic for conflict - like inter-family drama, or man vs. nature, literature more often uses what we call allusion.

What’s the difference between appropriation and allusion?

Allusion hints at (or alludes to) another specific story. Allusion doesn’t copy. It merely drops a clue here and there, like saying, “Remember that other story? This situation is similar.” In art, it alludes to another artwork - a bit of an inside joke, for those who know the older work. An example is Manet's Ophelia that alludes to Titian's Venus of Urbino. The purpose of allusion is to enrich the meaning of what’s happening, the characters, and so on. In Manet's Ophelia, the function of the allusion is to show us, "Well, look how the world has changed." There are many examples of films that allude to various paintings. You could even call it art appropriation, but not "appropriation art". 

Was it great?

Art appropriation can be wonderful and great when applied ethically. But, as I explained above, it can be horribly abused.

Some leading figures:

Pablo Picasso (Spanish, 1881-1973)

Georges Braque (French, 1882-1963)

Marcel Duchamp (French, 1887-1968)

Roy Lichtenstein (American, 1923-1997)

Elaine Sturtevant (American, 1924-2014)

Andy Warhol (Slovak-American, 1928-1987)

Jeff Koons (American, 1955-)

Vik Muniz (Brazilian, 1961-)

Damian Hirst (British, 1965-)

The Pictures Generation:

John Baldesarri (American, 1931-2020)

Barbara Kruger (American, 1945-)

Sherrie Levine (American, 1947-)

Louise Lawler (American, 1947-)

Richard Prince (American, 1949-)

David Salle (American, 1952-)

Michael Bidlo (American, 1953-)

Vikky Alexander (Canadian, 1959-)

Some of the most famous/notorious artworks: