Homework 9

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

I believe that Steal Like An Artist overlaps with works within the article Copy Rights in many different ways. First of all, it focuses heavily on utilizing hands within work in terms of appropriation. I found it rather interesting in particular how Kelley Walker described her own thoughts as "Stealing may be a cooler, more street term for appropriation." I believe that the example she used of her "Black Star Press" piece, which is featured below, was a great illustration of the elements of Steal Like An Artist applicable to art. The fact she utilized the melting of different shades of chocolate to change the overall perception of the piece is unique. It is interesting that the tone of Kelley is very laid back and relaxed in the sense that she accepts she appropriates and takes full awareness of what she is doing. By living in a visually appealing culture, Kelley utilizes her techniques to create art that is different. By working through different time periods, it allows her vision of previous famous art to be recreated to fit the time period that it resides within, within this particular piece she focuses on the elimination of each different subject within the photograph to give it new meaning.

In all honesty, I think that Kelley being a white artist should not matter in terms of the piece. Kelley's race did not have an impact on the photo, perhaps her perception since this photo was taken during times of controversy in race, but in today's society it should not have as much of an impact compared to if she created this work during the time there was a significant amount of controversy. Particularly, I think that it is okay for artists to approach different aspects of imagery that are uncomfortable. If artists never pursued topics that consisted of tremendous controversy or could offend someone, people's opinions and perceptions would not be heard. Living in a society where you can create art that is uncomfortable in a sense is a blessing because it allows artists to push themselves to the next level of meaning within their work. Not all work has to be visually appealing or complimenting, it can be offensive and make people uncomfortable. That is how awareness is brought to issues in society.

Additionally, the focus point of Schiller makes a valuable point when he states that appropriation, "...has challenged the way people think about art, challenged the way people think about objects, images, sounds, culture." This relates heavily to Steal Like An Artist in the sense that appropriation is ultimately the use of others' work in order to promote meaning or a new significance.

I believe that in some form, way, or another all artists fit into the category of appropriation artists. Artists turn towards their role model for inspiration and guidance in their own personal endeavors and journey throughout creation. At times, works of art is a simple collaboration if different backgrounds and thought processes of people put together to form a final concise product. At times, appropriation creates a product that has an entirely different meaning and depiction that the original product carried. By classifying all artists as appropriation artists, it gives hobbies and opportunities for artists to pursue in a new perspective and light within their own work.

When the article addressed the aspects of how appropriation can date back to as early as the 16th century it did a tremendous job closing with Mike Bidlo's perspective. He states, "Appropriation art brings masterpieces to a whole new generation", he also added that "New generations need blood to live." With that being said, it puts things in perspective that although time periods change overtime and society evolves, the blood line within relatives in traditionally similar and that falls back to who our ancestors are and the fundamentals of art that we have established and gained from their generations. Additionally, artists who are designing and developing new found art today are tremendously different than those artists who had been working years ago. Primarily, the invention and expansion of the technological field has allowed tremendous opportunities for digital graphic design and that competes with non-digital art in the traditional sense.

For example, scrapbooking used to be a huge element of my childhood with my mother. She would photograph in film, have the photos developed professionally, and create scrapbooks bound of our family photos. Now, in today's society, scrapbooking seems almost extinct. Families store all of their photos in digital files online and share them for other people to engage with and see on their social media websites opposed to having a sacred and family connection to the photographs. With that being said, as time evolves and new forms of art is discovered, it is going to challenge and recreate old forms of art. Therefore, it is inevitable that appropriation is going to happen since we are living in a digital age that focuses on the sharing and collaboration of life with people across the world.

The artist Marcel Duchamp is attributed to be the grandfather of contemporary art throughout society to this very day. This particular piece, featured below, is known as the L.H.O.O.Q. It is quite obvious that the major piece of art that is appropriated is the Mona Lisa, in which Duchamp changed the context and added facial hair to the work of art. This is an example of a very blatant form of appropriation.

"High" art is art that is appreciated by by those who have the associated cultivated taste. It traditionally is fine and has significant value, due to it's craft or it's meaning. It may possess some type of spiritual or higher power of meaning within the piece. Traditionally, the people who value high art have a different perception of art. These types of people might be seen at the galleries and museums more frequently to look and take in the works of art as an experience. In contrast, "low" art is art that is produced for the traditional public and masses of society, it's purpose is function. Most of the time, this type of art is not absorbed it is just there within society. Forms of this art may be ads or graphic design pieces featured on the internet, or forms of art within public transportation. It isn't magnificent, it just appears to be there and is not special to the everyday human eye. It did not take as much time or supplies to develop, it is rather simplistic.

I think the meanings of "high" and "low" art can definitely change. For example, think of all of the merchandise of the Mona Lisa that has been recreated. Calendars, post cards, t-shirts, the list could go on and on. Even though this is a recreation and print of the work of art, it is not in it's original form. Therefore, the original form of the art that is featured hanging inside The Louvre in Paris (which I have had the pleasure of seeing in person) is more significant and holds more value than a $5 t-shirt that you can buy off the street. 

Sampling differs than appropriation because sampling takes the bits and pieces of multiple different aspects of something and combines the similar ideas or techniques used within the different works of art. Sampling also is not recreating an original piece, which is what appropriation does, it is a combination of resources to create a new idea or meaning to art. Sampling is entirely different because it's purpose is to create something new through inspiration opposed to transforming works of art. Additionally, image transfer can be taking an image and layering it with other elements to create a new form of work. Think back to the example of the Mona Lisa t-shirts that I gave earlier, this is a transfer of a piece of art, I would not classify it to be the same as appropriation since it has a different meaning or technique to the purpose of the piece. 

In terms of Miranda Lichtenstein's viewpoint on "re-appropriation" essentially, anything that is digitally captured even through something as simple as an iPhone is re-appropriation. It is capturing the element of art or beauty in a digital form and more times than not, sharing it with another audience. If "re-appropriation" was not a thing, then what would Instagram be? Thousands upon thousands of people share works of art that have already been created. Think of the Renwick Gallery and all of the people who would photograph and share those sculptures and works of art. Is that "re-appropriation"? It is a topic that is left up to the mind of the viewer and the user of art since there is no real way to measure that aspect of appropriation.  

Elanie Sturtevant is an American conceptual artist whose work is very similar to artists such as Andy Warhol. She was an original replicator in the sense that it is instantly recognizable that it is as a Warhol silk-screen. Particularly, one piece caught my eye. It was the remaking of the original "Crying Girl" by Lichtenstein. His original piece sold for $78,400 at an auction. When Sturtevant reworked the canvas, she sold it for $710,500. Her piece is pictured below. Why do you think the reworked and recreated piece was more valuable than the original? Thoughts?