Appropriation in art is the use of existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them. The use of appropriation has played an important role in art history (literary, visual, musical and performing arts). In the visual arts, the appropriate means to adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects (or the whole form) of a manmade visual culture. Notable in this case is Readymades of Marcel Duchamp.
Inherent in our understanding of appropriation is the concept that new jobs recontextualizes whatever is borrowed to create new work. In most cases the original 'thing' remains accessible as the original, without change.
Video Appropriation (art)
Definisi
Appropriation has been defined as "taking over, being a work of art, of a real object or even an existing work of art." The Tate Gallery traces its practice back to Cubism and Dadaism, but continues into the 1940s Surrealism and 1950s pop art. It again became famous in the 1980s with the Neo-Geo artist.
Maps Appropriation (art)
History
At the beginning of the 20th century Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque took over objects from a non-art context into their work. In 1912, Picasso inserted a piece of oil cloth onto the canvas. The next compositions, such as Guitar, Newspaper, Glass, and Bottle (1913) where Picasso uses newspaper clippings to create forms, are categorized as synthetic cubism . Both artists incorporate the "real world" aspect into their canvas, opening up discussions of artistic meaning and representation.
Marcel Duchamp is credited with introducing the concept of ready to use , in which "industrial-produced utilitarian objects... attain art status only through the selection and presentation process." Duchamp explored this idea as early as 1913 when he climbed the bench with a bicycle wheel and again in 1915 when he bought a snow shovel and humorously wrote it "before the broken arm, Marcel Duchamp." In 1917, Duchamp officially submitted a work made into the Independent Artist Exhibition under the pseudonym, R. Mutt. Entitled Fountain , it consists of porcelain urinal supported on pedestal and signed "R. Mutt 1917". This work is a direct challenge to traditional perceptions of art, ownership, originality and plagiarism, and then rejected by the exhibition committee. Duchamp openly defends Fountain, claiming "whether Mr.Mutt with his own hand made the fountain or not important.He picked it.He took a regular life article, placed it so that its significance disappeared under the heading and a new point of view - and create new thinking for that object. "
The Chest Movement (including Duchamp as a companion) is continued with the seizure of everyday objects. Chest work displays intentional irrationality and rejection of applicable art standards. Kurt Schwitters, who produced art at the same time as the Dadais, showed the same strange taste in his "merz" works. He built this from the found objects, and they took the form of a large construction that the next generation would call the installation.
The surrealists, who came after the Dada movement, also included the use of 'found objects' such as Oppenheim's Object (Luncheon in Fur) (1936). These objects take on a new meaning when combined with other unlikely and unpleasant objects.
In 1938 Joseph Cornell produced what might be considered the first work of film appropriation in his randomly cut and reconstructed movie Rose Hobart .
In the 1950s Robert Rauschenberg used what he called "combining", literally combining finished objects such as tires or beds, paintings, screen printing, collages, and photography. Similarly, Jasper Johns, who worked at the same time as Rauschenberg, incorporated the objects found into his work.
The Fluxus art movement also makes use of appropriation: its members incorporate various art disciplines including visual arts, music, and literature. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s they staged "action" events and produced sculptural works featuring unconventional materials.
Together with artists like Claes Oldenburg and Andy Warhol take pictures of commercial art and popular culture as well as techniques from this industry. Often called "pop artists", they see mass popular culture as the main vernacular culture, shared by all regardless of education. These artists are fully involved with the efemera generated from this mass-production culture, embracing affordability and distance themselves from the artist's hand.
In 1958 Bruce Conner produced the influential A movie in which he recombined the existing movie clips. In 1958 Raphael Montanez Ortiz produced the Cowboy and Indian Movie , a work of seminal cinema.
In the late 1970s, Dara Birnbaum worked with appropriation to produce works of feminist art. In 1978-1979 he produced one of the first video allocations. Technology/Transformation: Wonder Woman utilizes video clips from the Wonder Woman television series .
The term the art of appropriation was used generally in the 1980s with artists such as Sherrie Levine, who discussed the act of placing itself as a theme in art. Levine often cites the entire work in his own work, such as photographing photos of Walker Evans. Challenging the idea of ​​originality, drawing attention to the relationship between power, gender and creativity, consumerism and commodity value, social sources and use of art, Levine played with the theme "almost the same". Elaine Sturtevant (also known simply as Sturtevant), on the other hand, painted and exhibited a perfect replica of famous works. He replicated Andy Warhol's Flowers in 1965 at the Bianchini Gallery in New York. He was trained to reproduce the artist's own technique - so far as Warhol repeatedly questioned his technique, he once replied, "I do not know." Elaine asked.
During the 1970s and 1980s Richard Prince photographed repeated commercials such as for Marlboro cigarettes or photo-journalism. His work picked up anonymous and ubiquitous billboards advertising campaigns, elevating status and focusing our view on images.
Appropriation artists comment on all aspects of culture and society. Joseph Kosuth took pictures to engage with philosophy and epistemological theory. Other artists who worked with appropriation during this time with include Jeff Koons, Barbara Kruger, Greg Colson, and Malcolm Morley.
In the 1990s artists continued to produce the art of appropriation, using it as a medium for dealing with social theories and problems, rather than focusing on the work itself. Damian Loeb uses film and cinema to comment on simulacrum themes and reality. Other top artists working at the moment include Christian Marclay, Deborah Kass, Damien Hirst and Genco Gulan.
In the digital age
Since the 1990s, the exploitation of historical precursors is as varied as the concept of appropriation is unclear. The number of unmatched equations includes not only the field of visual arts, but also from all areas of culture. The new generation of applicators considers themselves "archeolog [es] today". Some talk about "postproduction", which is based on an existing work, to re-edit the "cultural scenario". Annexations of works made by others or available cultural products mostly follow the concept of usage. The so-called "prosumers" - those who consume and produce at the same time - browse the archives of the ubiquitous digital world (less often via analogue ones), to take samples of images, words, and sounds accessed via 'copy' -stick 'or' drag-off 'to' pirated ',' mashup 'or' rebuild 'them as they like. Allocation is now a day-to-day phenomenon.
The new "remix" generation - which has taken steps not only from the visual arts, but also music, literature, dance and film - has caused, of course, a highly controversial debate. Lawrence Lessig's media expert was created in the early 2000s here the term remix culture. On the one hand are celebrities who foresee a new era of innovative, useful, and entertaining ways for the digital art and globalization of the 21st century. The new appropriationsist will not only be aware of Joseph Beuys's dictum that everyone is an artist but also "build a free society". By liberating the ultimate art from traditional concepts such as auras, originality, and genius, they will lead to a new understanding and definition of art. A more critical observer sees this as the starting point of a major problem. If creation is not based on the carefree process of discovering, copying, combining and manipulating pre-existing media, concepts, forms, names, etc. From any source, the understanding of art will shift in their view to trivial, demanding, and regressive activities. Given the limitations of art for reference to pre-existing concepts and forms, they forecast products that are recompiled and which are endless. Skeptics call this a recycling culture with addiction to the past
Some people say that only lazy people who have nothing to say let themselves be inspired by the past in this way. Another fear is that this new appropriation tendency is caused by nothing more than a desire to decorate itself with an interesting pedigree. The term appropriationism reflects the advantages of reproduction, remakings, reenactment, recreation, revision, reconstruction, etc. By copying, replicating, repeating, citing, plagiarizing, simulating, and adapting names, concepts and forms. Appropriations are discussed - compared to twentieth-century appropriation forms and concepts that offer a new representation of established knowledge - as a kind of "racetracking", referring to the acceleration of random, uncontrolled operations in highly mobilized and flowing Western societies. which is regulated more and more by the form of abstract control. Unlimited access to easy digital archive creations and digital technology, and the priority of fresh ideas and creative processes for the perfect work leads to hyperactive hustle and bustle in the past rather than launching a new expedition to an unexplored region that can provide visibility to ghost- a forgotten ghost and ignores the shadow of our common myth and ideology.
Art appropriation and copyright
The art of appropriation has resulted in controversial copyright issues regarding its validity under copyright law. The US has been very well aware of the law in this regard. A number of examples of legal cases have emerged that investigate the division between transformative works and derivative works.
Andy Warhol faces a series of lawsuits from a photographer whose work he obtained and speaks silk. Patricia Caulfield, one of the photographers, has been taking pictures of flowers for photography demonstrations for photography magazines. Without his permission, Warhol covered New York Leo Castelli's gallery wall with the reproduction of a silk-covered Caulfield photo in 1964. After seeing Warhol's unauthorized reproduction posters at a bookstore, Caulfield sued Warhol for infringing his rights as a copyright owner, and Warhol made a settlement of cash out of court.
On the other hand, Warhol's Famous Campbell's Soup Cans is generally considered not to violate the brand of soup maker, although it is clearly adjusted, because "the public is unlikely to see paintings sponsored by soup companies or represent competing products. soup cans are not themselves competing products, "according to trademark attorney expert Jerome Gilson.
Jeff Koons has also faced copyright issues due to appropriation work (see Rogers v. Koons ). Art Rogers photographer brought a lawsuit against Koons for copyright infringement in 1989. Koons's work, String of Puppies, reproduced in replica the Rogers black-and-white photo that appeared on the airport greeting card Koons bought. Although he claimed fair use and parody in his defense, Koons lost the case, in part because of the remarkable success he had as an artist and the way in which he was portrayed in the media. The parody argument also fails, because the court of appeals draws the distinction between creating a parody of modern society in general and a parody directed at a particular occupation, discovering a parody of a particular work, especially a very vague one, too weak to justify fair use from the original.
In October 2006, Koons managed to maintain a different work by claiming "fair use". For a commission of seven paintings for Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin, Koons took part of a photograph taken by Andrea Blanch titled Sandal Sutra by Gucci and published in the August 2000 issue of Allure magazine to illustrate the article about metal makeup. Koons takes a picture of the legs and sandals of the photo (removes other background details) and uses it in his paintings Niagara , which also includes three pairs of other ladies who hang surreal above the pie landscape. and cakes.
In his decision, Judge Louis L. Stanton of the US District Court found that Niagara was indeed a "transformative use" of Blanch's photo. "The use of the painting does not 'replace' or reproduce the original purpose," wrote the judge, "but uses it as a raw material in new ways to create new information, new aesthetics and new insights.Used as, whether successful or not. , is transformative. "
The details of Blanch's photo used by Koons have little copyright. Blanch has no rights to Gucci's sandals, "probably the most striking element of the photo", wrote the judge. And without sandals, only the representation of the remaining lady legs - and this is seen as "not original enough to deserve much protection of copyright."
In 2000, the Damien Hirst statue of Hymn (which Charles Saatchi had bought for reporting  £ 1m) was exhibited at the Ant Noises at the Saatchi Gallery. Hirst is sued for copyright infringement on this statue. The subject is his son's 'Young Scientist Anatomy Set', Connor, 10,000 of which are sold one year by Hull (Emms) Toy Manufacturer. Hirst created an enlarged 20 foot, six tons of Science Set figures, radically changing the perceptions of objects. Hirst paid unspent amounts to two charities, Children Nationwide, and Toy Trust in an out-of-court settlement. The charity donation was less than expected. Hirst sells three more statues for the same amount as the first one.
Using familiar objects to create artwork may prevent artists claiming ownership of copyright. Jeff Koons threatened to sue the gallery under copyright, claiming that the gallery violated his ownership by selling bookends in the form of a dog balloon. Koons abandoned the claim after the gallery filed a complaint over a declaration stating, "Since almost all clowns can prove, no one has the idea of ​​making a dog balloon, and the shapes made by rotating the balloon into a dog-like form are part of the public domain."
In 2008, photojournalist Patrick Cariou sued artist Richard Prince, Gagosian Gallery and Rizzoli's book for copyright infringement. Prince has taken 40 photos of Cariou from Rastafari from a book, creating a series of paintings known as the Canal Zone . The prince changed a lot of photographs, painting objects, hands of greatness, naked women and torsos men over photographs, then selling more than $ 10 million from works. In March 2011, a judge ruled in favor of Cariou, but Prince and Gargosian appealed on a number of points. Three judges for the US Court of Appeals upheld the right to appeal. The Prince's attorney argues that "Appropriation of art is a recognized form of modern art and postmodern that has challenged the way people think about art, challenging the way people think about objects, images, sounds, culture." On April 24, 2013, the appeals court largely overturned the preliminary decision, decided that many paintings had simply changed the original image and were therefore a permitted use. View Cariou v. Prince .
In November 2010, Chuck Close threatened legal action against computer artist Scott Blake to create a Photoshop filter that created an image of the exposed Chuck Close painting. The story was first reported by the online art magazine Hyperallergic, reprinted on the front page of Salon.com, and spread quickly through the web. Kembrew McLeod, author of several books on sampling and appropriation, said in Wired that Scott Blake's art must fall under the fair use doctrine.
In September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit questioned the Second Circuit's interpretation of the fair use doctrine in the case of Cariou . Of particular note, Seventh Circuit noted that "transformative use" is not one of the four fair-use factors mentioned but, rather, is only part of the first fair use factor that looks at the "purpose and character" of use. The Seventh Circuit Criticism lends credence to the argument that there is division among US courts of what role "transformatifity" is played in every fair use question.
In 2013, Andrew Gilden and Timothy Greene publish legal review articles at The University of Chicago Legal Review dissect the factual equations and legal differences between the case of Cariou and the Salinger Case v. Colting , articulating the concern that judges can create fair use "the privilege is largely reserved for the rich and famous."
Artist uses appropriation
Here is a famous artist known for their using an existing object or image with little or no transformation applied to them:
See also
Footnote
Further reading
- Brandon Taylor, Collage , Thames & amp; Hudson Ltd, 2006, p.Ã, 221
- Margot Lovejoy, Digital Stream: Art in the Electronic Age Routledge 2004
Bibliography
Juan MartÃÆ'n Prada (2001) La Apropiación Posmoderna: Arte, PrÃÆ'¡ctica apropiacionista y TeorÃÆ'a de la Posmodernidad . Fundamentos. ISBN 978 84 2450 8814.External links
- Michalis PichlerÃ,: Statement of Appropriations
- Appropriation Art Coalition-Canada
- Blanche v. Koons Decision (August 2005)
- Koons Win Landmark Copyright 2008 Claim 1/2006
- Koons won an appeal (2006)
- Creative Commons
- Free culture of international student movement
- The New York Institute for the Comedies of Fair U $ e conference (Archive.org)
- Open Source Culture: Intellectual Property, Technology and Art, Columbia Digital Media Center lecture series
- Public Domain
- Sherri Levine Interview
- Duchamp
- Lichtenstein
- Warhol
- transordinator/edition Reproduce conceptual artwork
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments