From my understanding, appropriation is the act of taking someone else's work without their permission and incorporating it into your own work. Fair Use, according to US Copyright Law, is the doctrine that briefs excerpts of copyright material and can be quoted verbatim under certain circumstances such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need of permission from the copyright owner. Naturally, Fair Use and appropriation are enemies due to the legal standings and ethics regarding each one. Fair Use is a guideline and a set of rules whereas appropriation does not follow a set standard beyond the discretion of the user.
After reading the articles regarding the 2008 lawsuit between Richard Prince and Patrick Cariou, the definition of appropriation becomes more serious within society. It seems quite easy, you rip a photograph from the internet, and truly, it isn't your own work. You didn't have to discover the idea, set up the scene, go through the precautionary measures and work to obtain the original work. Therefore, the laws of Fair Use should be perceived to be ultimately tangible.
In terms of making art, it isn't easy. It is time consuming and it is a process. Therefore, if art is going to be transformed or changed, as Richard Prince tried to do to Patrick Cariou's pieces, it should be a significant transformation. When I first originally glanced at Cariou's original photo, I admired the composition of the piece. I saw the significance within the subject and the body positioning, even the layout and the background. The different effects the photographer gave to create an allusion and feeling to the photo, that I appreciated. However, when I glanced at Prince's transformation, ultimately, I was unimpressed. I simply thought it was a quick change that didn't take nearly as much time to transform, and if anything, was rather insulting to Cariou's work. Coming from the photographer's perspective, I would be disappointed in someone using my own work and making a significant amount of money off of it but not recognizing the true artist at hand. Also, according to Fair Use, shouldn't the artist be using it for research, academic, news, or criticism purposes? How does this photograph fall into that realm of criticism?
In terms of the court system, appropriation was defined and ruled against Prince, therefore in 2011, leaving him to destroy all remaining copies and unsold paintings that incorporated Cariou's photographs. However, when this was appealed two years later, it created a new perspective within the world of copyright infringement. This redefined or reclassified ultimately the significance and difference between appropriation and Fair Use to the artist who are looking to transform digitally other artist's work, which is a growing field in art in today's society.
In regards to the tremendous profit through of Richard Prince's Instagram art, trickling in roughly $100,000, wow, that is in part, genius. However, he may have built his entire career based off appropriation, but is he ever going to have any sense of satisfaction through the use of other's work? He doesn't have anything incredibly original. It creates a debate on whether or not the meaning of his art is purposeful or not. Personally, I enjoy the aspect of originality within art opposed to the aspect of recreating another's artwork. I suppose the argument and dispute mostly falls back on what individuals do define as "purposeful" and "meaningful" within the realm of art.
Ashley,
ReplyDeleteYour last paragraph: Richard Prince, I agree it is genius of him. However, though he is using other peoples art to make other art, I still find him a creative individual. To be able to take one thing and turn it into something else takes a lot of work. It's kind of like a DIY project. And I think that's how he looks at his art. Though it is hard to turn nothing into something, I actually find it harder to turn something nice into something nicer because you're stuck and bounded to what you started off with.
Ashley,
ReplyDeleteYour last paragraph: Richard Prince, I agree it is genius of him. However, though he is using other peoples art to make other art, I still find him a creative individual. To be able to take one thing and turn it into something else takes a lot of work. It's kind of like a DIY project. And I think that's how he looks at his art. Though it is hard to turn nothing into something, I actually find it harder to turn something nice into something nicer because you're stuck and bounded to what you started off with.
Ashley,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about how hard it is to make art. I also think if you are adding to someone else's piece, it should elevate the entire work.
Hi Ashley, I absolutely agree with you when you said Cariou would be insulted by Prince's work. I also agreed with what you said at the end about having originality in art and that is exactly what I wrote in my homework too. The question you posed is a great one also, I do not think you'd get much satisfaction from copying others work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with every word of your third paragraph verbatim. It perfectly summarizes all of the problems I have with what Prince is doing by pretty much giving a middle finger to the concept of what Cariou had done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that if someone is going to appropriate work then it should be transformed drastically. I can't believe a mans whole art career is based on appropriation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you all are saying, It's so much grey in the art world. I think that setting guidelines may hinder creativity, but I do see where you guys are coming from about originality.
ReplyDeleteI think you're last point on the meaningful-ness of his work is true. I feel like he doesn't appreciate his own appropriation and the purpose of his artwork is to merely make a profit.
ReplyDeleteI also like the point that you bring up about the meaningfulness of the work. The thought is there and like you said, part of his genius is being able to sell these for $100,000.
ReplyDelete