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 