The final version of Assignment Two to be submitted for March 2018 assessment, which has been updated to take into account comments from my tutor, can be found by clicking on the link below.
Assignment Two: Assessment submission
Leave a reply
Category Archives: Assignment Two
Assignment Two: Response to tutor feedback
Once again my tutor Pauline sent her report back promptly, providing thorough and useful feedback.
My assignment submission can be seen here.
Again I was extremely pleased with this feedback, with Pauline commenting ‘This is another strong assignment: well done’. So I breathed an initial sigh of relief there.
However she did raise a number of issues that I need to focus on, both on the essay itself and other points in general. Overall, my interpretation of her feedback is that I do not have to make too many changes to the essay. The changes she does suggest I will discuss below.
- Pauline’s first comment was that she felt there was a slight issue in how I had described appropriation as ‘stealing’ the work of others, and drew my attention to the work of Sherrie Levine (which I discussed in my essay), commenting that ‘If we did not know that she was referencing Evans’ photographs, the whole conceptual basis of her work would collapse’.
I acknowledge the point that Pauline is making and have amended the relevant sentence in my essay accordingly so that it now reads ‘… a deliberate intention to overtly use the work of another’.
Moving on to my six chosen artists:
Sherrie Levine – After Walker Evans 4
Whilst I found Pauline’s comments on Levine’s work, which largely centred on the intentions behind Evans’ images and whether there was possible exploitation of his subjects, extremely interesting and informative around the topics I discussed, I haven’t made any changes to this section of the essay.
Given the demanding nature of this course and of some of the material that I have cone across to date, I was pleased to read Pauline’s comment that ‘You also very ably discussed key critical theorists in reality to postmodern theory and cultural status – so very well done for doing this so effectively.’ It would seem that the brain fog is lifting and the the theory I’m learning about is starting to sink in.
Jeff Koons – Lady Gaga ‘Artpop’ album cover
- Pauline began her feedback on this section by writing that ‘The discussion of the Koons’ work was similarly thorough and convincing’ which was a relief to hear. She continued by mentioning the debate around the borderlines between the areas of art, exploitation and photography, noting that this seems to be ‘a liminal space that he [Koons] seems happy to occupy’.
I will add thoughts on this point to my essay.
Elaine Sturtevant – Duchamp Bicycle Wheel
Nothing to add.
Haim Steinbach – supremely black
It was gratifying to note Pauline’s thoughts that ‘This section on Steinbach was really effective … This was really solid formal analysis’.
- Pauline posed an interesting thought:
‘Additionally, I think that the sculptural nature of the work – in particular the shelf (which you liken to a Minimalist sculpture – does tend to move it away from the overwhelmingly two-dimensional nature of advertising, and maybe it fits more with artists such as Joseph Kosuth or Martin Craig-Martin’s An Oak Tree, 1973’.
I hadn’t considered this angle so will research it further and add some comments in this regard to my essay.
Michael Landy – Costermonger’s Barrow II
Nothing to add
Tracey Emin – My Bed
- Among her comments on this section Pauline noted that ‘the work ‘leaves space’ for each viewer to construct their own narrative in response to it. in many ways this could be argued to be a core characteristic of a successful artwork’.
This comment supports Barthes’ theory of the death of the author (Barthes, 1967) and I will add some additional thoughts to my essay reflecting this.
General comments on the essay
- Pauline advised that the essay needs a concluding paragraph.
- She also suggested that I insert a linking paragraph between the two sets of three works.
- Whilst she felt that the essay read slightly like a list, she commented that ‘the content is really strong with a very impressive bibliography’.
I commented in my assignment reflection (see here) that whilst I did not present the assignment in a strict essay format I wondered whether in fact I should have done so. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the lesson learned here is if in doubt to check with my tutor. I will make the amendments that Pauline suggests as well as seeking to make the essay run more smoothly.
General comments on my Blog
Pauline began by commenting that ‘your self-evaluation was thorough and insightful’ which was pleasing to read. This is something that I have had to work hard at through my other OCA modules and it is nice to see my perseverance paying off.
Pauline felt that ‘there was a real sense of personal development, which was encouraging to read’. One interesting comment she made was ‘My sense was that ‘theory and practice’ are really coming together for you and that you do not see them as separate or even oppositional’. I found this very gratifying as I am aware of my deliberate introduction of some of the critical theories into my photographic practice; for instance in the manner of Barthes I try to leave some of my work deliberately ‘open’ to allow the viewer to bring their own experiences to the image.
- Pauline advised that I should separate out the material from my MOOC courses as its presence on the UVC blog causes confusion.
Point taken. I have moved all the MOOC posts to a different category and they now appear under a separate header tab on my blog, distinguishing them from my OCA work.
- Pauline commented on the content of one of my posts (‘Exhibition write ups and the need to improve’) noting that the advice from a previous tutor (in fact it was the assessors for my previous OCA module) on applying more critical analysis to exhibitions visits, also saying that I could do the same for articles and books if time allowed.
Again, I have noted this. I am aware that this is something I need to work on, particularly once I start my Level Two studies.
- Pauline’s final comment was that where possible she would like me to include some images in my blog.
The issue of copyright and whether to include other artists’ images in my blog is one I’ve thought long and hard over and looked on the OCA student forums for guidance. The general opinion seems to be to provide a link to an image (and reference it correctly) rather than to embed it directly into a student blog. There is a debate as to the use of images for educational purposes, but to be honest I’d rather not go there and take the risk of being sued.
Suggested reading/viewing
For the next assignment Pauline suggested some reading around semiotics and decoding advertisements, recommending five books on these topics. She also gave some useful pointers on how to approach the assignment.
Bibliography
Barthes, R. (1967) The Death of the Author. At: http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2016)
Assignment Two: process and reflection
Much like the first assignment, on reading the brief for Assignment Two I realised that I had very little knowledge of the subject of appropriation, let alone any artists who were active in this area. I had heard of Sherrie Levine and Andy Warhol but that’s about as far as it went, thus demonstrating one of the reasons that I decided to study this course, namely to improve my dismal lack of knowledge of the visual arts and the culture that underpins them. Once again Wikipedia proved to be a good starting point as it provided a long list of appropriation artists and a good number of references to follow up.
I had decided at the outset of my assignment planning that within each ’sub-group’ of three artists I wanted to choose ones who took different approaches in their work. I felt that this strategy had worked well for the first assignment, providing both an interest to the reader and a starting point for my assignment structure, and I feel that it gave a useful framework again for this assignment also.
The starting point of this assignment was a visit, along with a fellow OCA student, to the ‘Botticelli Reimagined’ exhibition at the Victoria and Albert museum in London (V&A, 2016). I don’t often get to the V&A as it is slightly off the beaten track for me, but I felt that this exhibition could be useful in terms of my assignment which proved to be the case, with Jeff Koons and his album cover for Lady Gaga (which openly incorporated the work of both Botticelli and Bernini) providing inspiration as something slightly different to bring into the assignment.
Sherrie Levine’s direct copying of Walker Evans’ photographs cropped up a number of times during my research on appropriation which made her an easy choice for inclusion, and whilst Elaine Sturtevant’s copy of a readymade (Duchamp’s bicycle wheel) could easily have been included in the second part of the assignment (it did at one point feature there) I felt it provided the contrast in method that I was after for my third artist for part one.
I’d come across Haim Steinbach when researching for the exercise ‘Art as commodity’ in part one of the course. Steinbach takes consumer objects and displays them on shelves thus echoing the shop/department-store connotation delivered by Koons. However I find him less egocentric than Koons and I am interested and intrigued by his use of objects as a type of grammatical language. Looking for a counter-position with regard to the commodity fetishism displayed by Steinbach I discovered the work of Michael Landy who uses his pieces to actively criticise the excesses of consumerism. My third artist, Tracey Emin, uses personal everyday objects in a gallery setting to project her own experiences to the viewer.
This is my first visual arts course and I will be assessed against a different set of criteria than for my previous two courses. Having received positive and constructive feedback from my tutor on my first assignment, I am cautiously optimistic that I am travelling along the right lines with this submission.
Demonstration of subject based on knowledge and understanding
(Broad and comparative understanding of subject content, knowledge of the appropriate historical, intellectual, cultural or institutional contexts)
Before starting this assignment I had little knowledge of appropriation so it was necessary for my research to be quite wide-ranging. Looking at the length of my bibliography I wonder whether in fact it was possibly too wide-ranging. However, I feel that the knowledge and understanding that I gained from this research enabled me to present a strong assignment as well as enhancing my overall knowledge of and engagement with the visual arts.
Due to ongoing personal circumstances I was not able to visit as many exhibitions as I would have liked so I centred the majority of my research on books and online resources. However I accept that a wider approach to research is more beneficial so will try to remedy this in the months ahead.
Demonstration of research skills
(Information retrieval and organisation, use of IT to assist research, ability to evaluate IT sources, the ability to design and carry out a research project, locate and evaluate evidence from a wide range of primary and secondary sources)
I enjoyed researching for this assignment, finding it very rewarding, and I am pretty confident in my ability to locate and evaluate evidence. However, as mentioned above, I realise that I fell into the trap of over-researching and that going forward I need to acknowledge when to stop and draw a line.
One area that I noted in my reflection on the first assignment as needing attention was my methodology with regards to organising my collected research material and I feel now that I have a better process in place – annotate and flag as I read, then collate into an online document, using an outliner tool for ease of rearranging. I’m not sure whether I’m there yet with a 100% foolproof system but I do feel that I’m on the right track. I also use Mendeley as online storage for books, articles and research papers that I come across and am aiming to build an online library that will support my future studies.
Demonstration of critical and evaluation skills
(Engagement with concepts, values and debates, evidence of analysis, reflection, critical thinking, synthesis, interpretation in relation to relevant issues and enquiries)
This is an area that I have consciously worked on during my previous studies and feel that I am improving. As for the previous assignment, I wrote the text with a specific audience in mind, namely my tutor and the assessors both of who are an audience well-informed in the arts, and tried to contextualise accordingly. My tutor feedback from my first assignment indicated that I had been successful in this aim so whilst not writing an essay this time I have attempted to produce a similar piece of structured writing with the inclusion of my own opinions where appropriate, backed up by the necessary research and context.
Communication
(The ability to communicate ideas and knowledge in written and spoken form, including presentation skills)
The lack of a prescribed word count in fact made this a more difficult assignment than the first in terms of communication – a tight word count limit certainly heightens the need to write clearly and concisely. In fact I ended up with just over 4,500 words, a scope which I felt did justice to my six chosen artists.
The assignment brief did not determine whether an essay was required, referring only to notes and annotations. I therefore did not present my assignment in a strict essay layout, however I do wonder in hindsight whether I should have done so. If my tutor advises that this would have been the preferred format I will amend the work accordingly for assessment.
Bibilography
Botticelli, S. (2016) Botticelli Reimagined. [Exhibition]. London: V&A. 05 March – 03 July 2016
Assignment Two: The displaced image
For this second assignment we are invited to explore the ways that artists use the work of others in their own work and to look at the effects that such appropriation has on our comprehension of meaning. We are asked specifically to find three examples of work in which the work of others is incorporated and another three where everyday objects have been appropriated, copied or referenced and then represented as works of fine art.
For the first part of the assignment (work in which the work of others is incorporated) I chose the following artists:
- Sherrie Levine – After Walker Evans 4
- Jeff Koons – Lady Gaga ‘Artpop’ album cover
- Elaine Sturtevant – Duchamp Bicycle Wheel
For the second part (artists who use everyday objects and represent them as works of fine art) I selected the following:
- Haim Steinbach – supremely black
- Michael Landy – Costermonger’s Barrow II
- Tracey Emin – My Bed
We are asked to use a copy of each piece of work and annotate it, together with other comments alongside, to show our understanding of the original artist and the meaning that the final image conveys to the contemporary viewer as well as the way in which such meaning is communicated.
You can read my assignment submission by clicking on the link below:
Assignment Two preparation: Notes from ‘The Feathers of the Eagle’ by Sven Lütticken
In this essay Lütticken considers that a reappraisal of appropriation art (‘AA’) is needed, moving away from the stance that appropriation is critical in nature. He looks at the argument that the more radical appropriationists were modern ‘mythologists’, inspired by Barthes.
Contemporary culture built on appropriation – digital technology has made it easier to reuse and manipulate images – photoshop, TV channel-hopping.
AA – emerged in 1980s > ‘clear intimations of transgression and illegality’ (p.109). Objections to claims that appropriation art is an ‘artistic strategy’ – why should it have special status? > Crimp (who supported AA) ‘if all aspects of culture use this new operation, then the operation itself cannot indicate a specific reflection upon the culture’ (Crimp 1982, cited in Lutticken 2005:109)
Graw – AA theory treats the appropriation artist as a ‘fully conscious, detached and critical subject’ (p.110), therefore denying that influence of the appropriated material may affect outcome of the new work. Goes against post-structuralist views on originality and authorship.
Barthesian thefts
c.1980 – Richard Prince (rephotographed contemporary ads), Sherrie Levine (rephotographed well-known photographs) and Louise Lawler (rephotographed works of art). Considered by Crimp and [Hal] Foster to be ‘Barthesian mythologists who ‘steal’ and subvert media myths’ (p.111). Crimp on Levine: ‘Drawn to pictures whose status is that of a cultural myth …[she] steals them away from their usual place in our culture and subverts our mythologies’ (Crimp 1977/79, cited in Lutticken, 2005:111)
Barthes’ ‘Myths’ – discussed in his Mythologies (1957) > bourgeois ideologies of our time – ‘hijacking signs and giving them a saturated surplus meaning’ (p.111). ‘Myth was a second-degree semiotic system grafted onto a first-degree one’ (ibid.) Example of black soldier saluting before the French flag – literal meaning but also second ‘mythical’ meaning – signified greatness of France, its universal principals, different races pledged their allegiance.
Barthes > defined his mythology as a synthesis of semiology and ideology. Historical dimension present in latter. Positioned himself as a mythologist of modern media (p.112)
AA anticipated by Flaubert – ‘Bouvrard et Pecuchet’ > re-writing,copying, appropriating > second-degree writing – quoting and paraphrasing. Turned into a progressive strategy by Barthes > ‘hints at a true mythology in which logos and mythos critcize, transform and liberate each other’ (p.114)
Divine spirit, conquest, imperialism
Marcel Broodthaers – ‘The Eagle from the Oligocene to the Present’ exhibition (1972) – ‘direct artistic response to the challenge posed by Mythologies’ (p.114). Eagle – real bird (not imaginary) yet with mythical connotations (Zeus’ pet) > shows how ‘an object can be appropriated by myth and still have same meaning on different levels’ e.g. power, authority, divine spirit, imperialism etc.
Broodthaers then presented photos and slideshows of eagles on various products. Oppitz (an anthropologist) claimed that Broodthaiers weakened the mythical power of eagle by multiplying eagles. [CS note – link here with Benjamin and the art of mechanical reproduction – weakening of the original]
Photographs and readymades
Barthes ‘advocated stealing myths rather than specific images or texts’ (p.116). Image or text (or fragment of one) in new context can make the myth it hosts explicit – more common in visual art than in literature. Camera ‘facilitates the two-dimensional appropriation of objects’ (p.116) > Duchamp’s readymades can be viewed as ‘a radical manifestation of a culture informed by photography’ (p.116)
Barthes – ‘recasts the distinction between first- and second-degree (mythical) semiological systems as the difference between denotation and connotation’ (p.116) > reading of pasta advert in ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ (Barthes 1964, cited in Lutticken, 2005:117)) > cliché of ‘Italianness’
Readymades – ‘ordinary objects which serve as their own representation through alteration of context and negation of their original function: in the process they accrue strangely solipsistic surplus meanings’.
Duchamp’s appropriated industrial images – ‘the negated and represented element is already a representation, already a negation of presence’ (p.117).
Broodthaers – also used images as readymades > photography became more dominant in his work – moved further away from the appropriation of images as objects to the appropriation of images through photography/re-photography.
‘Art which aims to reflect on media myths by a conceptual use of photography risks becoming mythified itself’ (p.118) > embodies the myth of ‘critical’ art.
Decodings
Situationists International – ‘the re-representation of images in an artistic context would only mean their integration into an art world that is itself part of spectacle’ (p.119) so SI détournement (= subverting elements of popular culture) had to go further > demands for ‘the negation of art itself as one prerequisite for an end to the spectacle’ (p.119)
Debord’s spectacle = representation > the spectacle of commodities – ‘Duchamps’ appropriated images but [and] all his readymades would be representations, or at least elements within the spectacle as the hieroglyphic transcription of social relations’ (p.119) >> Marx – commodity fetishism.
De Brosses – posited that ‘fetishism was the most original and primitive form of myth’ (p.120) > commodity fetishm is therefore defined by Marx as ‘a creature of myth’. Myth and capitalism > Debord and Raoul Vaneigem >> the spectacle is a representation of myth.
Debordian view – ‘The destruction of spectacular myth and its fetishist illusions cannot be achieved by a mere artistic appropriation of commodity-images’ (p.121) > ’Situationist détournement is the proper way of appropriating spectacular myth’ (p.121)
Sameness and repetition
Debord and Deleuze – concentrated on the temporal dimension of myth, drawing from work of modern mythologists such as Eliade. Mythic time – ‘cyclic repetition of archetypal events in a remote, aboriginal past’ (p.121) > Debord – pseudo-cyclic time of the spectacle.
Deleuze ‘identifies representation with the copying of models, and hence with mythical repetition; in this respect mass culture as a culture of cliches remains in thrall to myth. Art can appropriate these representations and turn them into something else’ (p.122) > Pop art starts in the artificial and then can turn into the simulacrum.
Warhol – emphasised the second-degree nature of his images > often repeated into grids ‘to empty out the image’. Strong fetishist and believer in mythical commodity – ‘his repetitions reinforce the images of the spectacle, and bring them into question precisely by doing so’ (p.122)
Inside myth
Warhol – started to be aware of copyright problems so started to take his own photographs – 1981 Myths portfolio.
Louise Lawler – makes numerous photographs of works by Warhol > appropriation of appropriation
Pop – omitted from discussion of AA – why? Is its ‘embrace of the commodification of art [was] too uncomfortably close to home?’ (p.124)
Defenders of ‘critical’ art – both Pop and Situationism undermined art – Pop ‘for’ the spectacle, Situationism against it. Pop’ collapsed the difference between artistic and other commodities’, Situationism ‘demanded the abolition of both artistic and other commodities’ (p.124) >> ‘Both can serve as a corrective for the tendency to idealise art as inherently critical’ (p.124)
Crimp – ‘doubted that critical reflection on culture could use a procedure that is an important part of the same culture’ i.e. appropriation (p.124) Appropriations can end up reinforcing myths. Second-degree mythology can also become its own myth – the myth of appropriation.
Criticality – ‘Criticality’ is only to a limited extent a result of the artist’s subjective intentions. Nor is it a stable attribute of any image or text. Rather, it is something that results from the use of a text or image by an artist or critic, or other viewers.’ (p.125, author’s italics)
My thoughts
Lütticken’s essay takes a completely different angle on appropriation than my other readings so far. Although easy to read I found it quite difficult to digest, hence a number of readings and these fairly detailed notes. One of my initial issues was to convince my brain to retain the meaning here (and as used by Barthes) of the word ‘myth’ to refer to a dominant ideology of our time rather than a folklore legend. I was also glad that I had read about the ideas of Benjamin, Debord and the Situationists before tackling this essay as having some knowledge of these helped my comprehension immeasurably.
I find the concept of appropriation of appropriation interesting – with the passing of time there is always the possibility that, through the receipt of additional mythical connotations, an appropriated image may end up losing its original individuality, its own message. Hence the work of artists such as Louise Lawler (appropriating the appropriated work of Andy Warhol) and Michael Mandiberg (appropriating the appropriated work of Walker Evans) are important in keeping the intentions of edginess, the subversiveness that characterises so much of appropriation art works at their inception.
Bibliography
Lütticken, S. (2005) ‘The Feathers of the Eagle’. In: New Left Review 36 November-December 2005. [online]. At: http://dspace.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/21431/182536.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed on 08 March 2016)
Assignment Two preparation: Notes from ‘Appropriation in Contemporary Art’ by Hayley Rowe
Appropriation = act of borrowing or reusing existing elements within a new work.Postmodern appropriation artists are keen to repudiate the notion of ‘originality ‘ (eg Barbara Kruger). The borrowing of existing elements > recontextualisation > allowing the viewer ‘to renegotiate the meaning of the original in a different , more relevant, or more current context’
Marcel Duchamp – first artist to use appropriation. Concept of ‘readymades’ – taking everyday object and asking viewer to consider it as art > appropriation.
Appropriation – art of the 1980s.
‘The concepts of originality and of authorship are central to the debate of appropriation in contemporary art’ (p.2)
Author – one who originates or gives existence to a piece of work > authorship ‘determines a responsibility for what is created by the author’ Appropriation can support view that ‘authorship in art is an outmoded or misguided concept’ > Barthes’ ‘Death of the Author’ > ‘it is the language which speaks; not the author.’ (Barthes 1967, cited in Rowe, 2011:2)
Viewer less likely to consider role of the artist of the appropriated work when forming their interpretation and opinion of it if they are aware of the work from which it was appropriated > questions more likely to arise about the current validity of the work and the issues raised by the re-contextualising of the original > ‘The birth of the reader must be at the death of the author.’ (Barthes 1967, cited in Rowe, 2011:2-3)
Opposing view offered by Irvin (see my post here on Irvin’s essay) – appropriation can strengthen the concept of authorship within art.
Rowe – authorship is a concept that we must consider when considering appropriated works > evidence suggests that authorship is important within appropriation in contemporary art – but maybe we should consider a diminished authorship in light of Barthes’ arguments.
Originality is central to debate of appropriation. What is originality? Quality of creation – two way approach > i) property of work itself or ii) as a property of the artist. Many appropriation artists keen to deny notion of originality.
Julie Van Camp: ‘We value originality because it demonstrates the ability of the artist to advance the potential of an art form’ (Van Camp 2007, cited in Rowe, 2011:3) > problematic – Sherrie Levine copied Evans’ photographs > not original but advanced the art form by raising awareness of existing imagery. We tend to equate originality with aesthetic newness – should a new concept be considered unoriginal?
Barbara Kruger – utilises media imagery to try to interpret consumer society > ‘asks us to rethink the images we consume on a daily basis in terms of perception and how underlying messages function within this imagery’ (p.5). Less abstract work than Duchamp > possibly more accessible with wider audience.
Pictures – 1977 exhibition curated by Crimp – using appropriation to address the consumption of imagery and displaying it as a new mode of representation > Sherrie Levine, Troy Bauntuch, Robert Longo.
Richard Prince – focuses on the re-photography of high-end adverts less the captions > interest in commodity and consumption. Very little alteration > questions of originality and authorship >> ‘I never associated advertisements with having an author’ (Prince 2007, cited in Rowe, 2011:7)
‘The discourse and attention surrounding the concept of appropriation means we must consider it an art form’ (p.7)
My thoughts:
A gentle introduction into the world of appropriation art, with the dialogue about some of the main players together with examples of their work being helpful. I must admit to disagreeing with Rowe’s statement ‘The discourse and attention surrounding the concept of appropriation means we must consider it an art form’ (p.7) in her closing paragraph. I do not find Rowe’s reasoning to be strong enough in my opinion to justify her conclusion – I would consider factors such as the huge diversity of approaches and forms to be found within appropriation art to be more pertinent.
Bibliography
Rowe, H. (2011) ‘Appropriation in Contemporary Art’. In: Student Pulse 3 (06) [online]. At: http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/546/appropriation-in-contemporary-art (accessed on 08 March 2016)
Assignment Two preparation: Notes on appropriation from ‘Beginning postmodernism’ by Tim Woods
‘Beginning postmodernism’ by Tim Woods (Woods, 2009) was one of the recommended reads from my tutor in her feedback report on my first assignment. These notes are taken from chapter five which looks at postmodernism in visual art, sculpture, and the design arts.
Appropriation = leasing or borrowing
‘Appropriation’ > popular postmodernist term – similar to poststructuralist view that people can only borrow from an existing database => there is no longer any originality available.
Artists: Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, Jeff Koons, Sherrie Levine.
Two main (opposing) positions:
- Appropriation looks back to earlier art – ‘both imitating previous styles and taking over specific motifs or even entire images’ (p.155) . ‘“Appropriation”, like myth, is a distortion rather than a negation of prior semiotic images’. (p.155). Retains original connotation but also shifts them to create a new sign >> the original remains unchanged whilst the new work recontextualises. Principal theorists: Craig Owens, Hal Foster, Douglas Crimp, Benjamin Buchloh
- Appropriation art is informed by ‘the sense of the decline and impending death of art’ (Kuspit 1993, cited in Woods, 2009:155) Principal theorist: Donald Kuspit
Hal Foster – two types of postmodernism – one of reaction and one of resistance. (p.156)
- Reaction – recycling of ‘worn-out styles like neo-classicism’ – Mariani (artist), Jencks (theorist)
- Resistance – mainly from left-wing and feminism – political issues
Matter of debate as what exactly is reacted against or resisted.
Craig Owens – looks at postmodernism as ‘the return of the allegory’. – work which ‘is synthetic; it crosses aesthetic boundaries’ producing ‘a confusion of boundaries’ (Owens 1980, cited in Woods, 2009:157). Appropriation is one of a number of strategies characterising contemporary art and differentiating it from modernist art. Use of photo-mechanical reproduction in order to challenge art’s uniqueness and aura – empties images of their significance through generation of images through reproduction of other images > Warhol (soup cans, Marilyn Monroe), Nam June Paik (tv installations), Levine (parodic photographic reproductions).
Bibliography
Woods, T. (2009) Beginning Postmodernism (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press
Assignment Two preparation: Notes from ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’ by Sherri Irvin
Main argument of essay: appropriation art strengthens and reaffirms the authorship of the original.
Introduction
Difference between appropriation art and artistic forgery: ‘artists bear ultimate responsibility for whatever objectives they choose to pursue through their work whereas the forger’s central objectives are determined by the nature of the activity of the forgery … Far from undermining the concept of authorship in art, then, the appropriation artists in fact reaffirmed and strengthened it’ (p.1)
What makes the artist the author of the work? Idea of author questioned by critical theorists such as Barthes and Foucault. Elaine Sturtevant > copied others work with little/no alteration and presented it as her own. ‘What difference does it make who is speaking?’ (Foucault 1969, cited in Rainbow (ed.) 1984:120)
Appropriation art
Elaine Sturtevant – works by Lichtenstein, Oldenburg, Johns, Stella and Warhol – assistance on occasions from original artist e.g. Warhol.
Radical appropriationists in 1980s – Sherrie Levine (Evans, Rodchenko, Matisse, Duchamp), Mark Bidio (Warhol, Pollock, Duchamp, de Chirico). Important >> no attempt to deceive.
1990s – Glenn Brown (Martin, Auerbach, Dali).
2000s – Mark Bidio (Duchamp), Netsky (Rothko), Mandiberg (appropriating Levine’s Walker Evans appropriations).
Appropriation and compromised authorship
Appropriation artists ‘substitute the voices of others for their own’. Decisions/choices in image made by Evans, not by Levine (or Mandiberg) – does this deny Levine/Mandiberg as artist? Common sense = yes, however appropriation art has been accepted as artworks – Turner Prize, major museums, art criticism venues, magazines etc. >> appropriation art is art and appropriationists are authors of their works.
Authorship and innovation
Innovation – Kant proposed that innovation is essential to art. But Irvin argues that innovation is not necessary for artistic authorship. It might contribute to value of artwork but does not distinguish appropriation from forgery.
Artistic motives
Deceptiveness does not prevent authorship.
Artistic considerations – forger’s are instrumental – construction of a successful replica, artist’s are more widespread. But need to consider decision-making processes of appropriationist – e.g. copying work not protected by copyright (Levine – stopped using Evan’s work and moved on to Rodchenko), choosing style of work which would sell better (Warhol – expressionist or slick soup cans? Slick won out).
Authenticity, purity of motive or freedom from instrumental concerns are an ideal for artists but one cannot claim that lack of authenticity prevents one from being an artist. So authenticity does not differentiate between artist and forger as author.
Artistic objectives and responsibility
Is the artist an author because she has the intention that her works are artworks? A forger has non-artistic objective of producing viable copy. The artist, not the activity, has to choose her own objectives > setting of objectives provides degree of responsibility.
An appropriation artist with minimal intention may be considered an artist: ‘The artist is author of her products by virtue of the intention that they be artworks, whereas the forger fails to be an artist, and thus to be the author of her works, because she possesses no such intention’ (p.18)
Appropriation art and the reaffirmation of authorship
Innovation – clear way of demonstrating responsibility for a work. Levine ‘aimed to call into question both their [the original artist] authorship and her own’ (p.21). However still retained authorship as selected and pursued choices in her project.
Concluding paragraph
Appropriationists often ‘seen as challenging or undermining notions of artistic authorship’, however by refusing demands of originality and innovation, appropriation artists demonstrated that these are expendable > no obligation for an artist to produce innovative work. ‘The demand for originality is an extrinsic pressure directed at the artist by society, rather than a constraint that is internal to the very concept of art. As a result it is up to the artist to decide whether to acquiesce in this demand or not. By revealing this … these artists have actually reaffirmed the artist’s authorial status.’ (p.25)
Bibliography
Irvin, S. ( 2005) Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art. At: http://philosophy.ou.edu/Websites/philosophy/images/irvin/Appropriation.pdf (accessed on 05 May 2016)
Rainbow, P. (ed.) (1984) The Foucault Reader. Translated by. Harari, J. New York: Pantheon Books
Understanding Visual Culture 