This is my essay I wrote I where I set the question and initiated my own research behind it. I choose tis subject as it addresses issues surrounding my work.
Issues
of authorship and originality in relation to the use of appropriation in
contemporary art.
Appropriation artist’s use of other
artist’s works and sources brings up issues and questions surrounding the
notions of authorship and originality. It has been said that appropriation
artist’s authorship relation to their work appears compromised from the very
start due to the inclusion of other people’s works. Some appropriation artists
themselves have also declared that there is no such thing as originality,
particularly traditional notions of originality in an age of technical
innovation and easy reproduction.
Appropriation is a practice that goes
back far in history for different purposes. Albrecht Durer originally set the
paradigm for what a Rhinoceros looked like for people in Europe who had never
seen one before. He made a drawing of a Rhinoceros from vague sketches and a
description; this drawing became the set image for rhinoceroses in his work and
other artist’s works that wanted to include a rhinoceros. However with these
artist’s works there didn’t appear to be a problem of authorship and
originality with their inclusion of Durer’s rhinoceros as they were just seen
as using the accepted depiction of rhinoceros.
Artists such as Pablo Picasso and
Georges Braque in the early twentieth century appropriated images from
newspapers in their cubist collages. Issues of authorship with these works weren’t
as apparent as more recent artists that are classified under the umbrella of
appropriation artists. Authorship and originality became more of an issue as
artists started to use appropriation in more extreme ways in some cases as a
way to directly challenge these terms. Elaine Sturtevant took appropriation art
to more extreme levels; she replicated artist’s work such as Andy Warhol, Claes
Oldenburg, Roy Lichtenstein and Marcel Duchamp through the process they were
originally created. Her works tip traditional ideas of originality and
authorship on its head.
Roland Barthes (1) tells us that to impose an author on
a work is to impose a limit on the work. He says ‘the birth of the reader
must be ransomed by the death of the Author.’ Sherrie Irvine (2005) asks “The work of the appropriation
artists, which continues into the present, might well be thought to support the
idea that the author is dead: in taking freely from the works of other artists,
they seem to ask, with Foucault, ‘What difference does it make who is speaking?’” Through the use of appropriation
the author may appear to be dead however the importance of the author seems
more apparent and although the author may be challenged, it is not dead.
This is particularly evident in Sherrie Levine’s Work where she
photographed Walker Evans’ photographs from an exhibition catalogue and re-presented
them in an exhibition as her work. Here the author of the work becomes very
important to establish, as knowing the author completely changes your
understanding and reading of it. In visual terms the works of Walker Evans and
the appropriated images of Evans’ photos by Sherrie Levine are the same. However
they have been through different processes and were made under different intentions
and contexts. Walker Evans was documenting the effects of the great depression
and had to consider and work through issues and concerns, such as composition,
lighting, the subject and so forth. Whereas Levine has re-photographed his photos
to make a commentary on photographic reproduction, artistic originality,
authorship and authenticity. “[She] wanted it understood that she was flatly
questioning questioning-no, flatly undermining-those most hallowed principles
of art in the modern era: originality, intention, expression” (Rimanelli, David, 1994). Levine creates a whole
new concept for ‘Evans’’ photographs, they wouldn’t be considered as new works
and this concept wouldn’t be apparent if the author was not known and
recognized as we would just assume they were Evans’ images. So we can see here for
the reader (audience) to be empowered it does make an important difference as
to who is speaking.
On the other hand With Pierre Bismuth’s piece ‘Blue Monk in
Progress’ the issue of the author comes across in a different way. He used a
Yamaha Disclavier piano that can record a player’s performance and then recite
it back. Pierre Bismuth used this to record him learning to play Thelonious
Monk’s piano piece ‘Blue Monk’. He then had this performance written as musical
notation with all the errors, which he then got a professional pianist to play
on the Disclavier piano. The pianist played the piece according to the musical
score like the errors of Bismuth were intentional and were meant to be in the
piece. The final work that was exhibited was of the Disclavier playing back
what the pianist had played on it.
In this piece of work the authorship can be interpreted in
different ways. Is Bismuth the author as he was the one who’s idea it was to do
this piece of work and organize it? Is Thelonious Monk the author, as his piece
‘Blue Monk’ is a key part and center of the work? Is the Pianist the author as
it is their recording recital that is played? Is the Disclavier piano the
author, as it is the disclavier that when it comes down to it, when the work is
exhibited, that actually plays the piece? Or is it a combination of all of
them? This piece may be seen to have different authors, that may be disputed but
establishing the author and knowing who is speaking here may not be so
important compared to Sherrie Levines work. Knowing the process of the work and
leaving it to the audience to decipher and interpret is more interesting.
As we can see with Bismuth’s work there is some debate as to who
actually is the author when an artist’s work consists of other peoples work.
Normally artists are held responsible for every aspect and decision made within
their work. However when an artist appropriates someone else’s artwork they are
not responsible for every feature, as someone else has created them through
their decisions. This questions
the work’s author and the originality of the new work, as it does not wholly
originate with the ‘new’ artist. Although large parts of appropriations works may
not originally be features created by the appropriation artist it doesn’t mean necessarily
that they are not the authors of the new work or that it is not original.
Elaine Sturtevant makes
a point about her work and the issue of copying, “There’s
a big difference in repeating in the sense of Deleuze, and copying. Firstly, a
copy must be absolutely of the same intention as the original, whereas my work
deals with an interior movement, and repetition as difference.” (OBRIST, HANS
ULRICH, 2009.) This
can be applied to other appropriation artists works to when arguing who is the
author. The different processes, intention, context and transformation of the
appropriated work establish the work as something substantially different from
the original and so asserts the authorship of the creator of the appropriated
work. This shows how Sherrie Levine is the author of her work, as even though
her work of appropriated images by Walker Evans are visually the same as Walker
Evans’ originals, Levine is the author of her work as she created the work with
new intentions and concepts that’s originate with her. Further more society has
accepted such appropriation artists as the author of their work and they have
been recognized and have received awards as successful artists. Elizabeth Price
recently won the 2012 Turner Prize for her piece ‘The Woolworths choir of 1979’
which was made up of appropriated archival footage edited into the award
winning piece. Also many appropriation artists have had exhibitions and have
their work held at prestigious institutions, which wouldn’t have happened if
the artist weren’t taken seriously as the authors of their work.
Appropriation may ‘copy’ other artist’s work but it isn’t
forgery. John Myatt painted copies by famous painters such as Monet and
originally sold them as ‘genuine fakes’. However with the help of John Drewe he
realised he could sell them as the genuine article for a lot more money. He
created over 200 fakes that were sold but they were both found out, were
convicted and spent time in prison. Myatt now has returned to selling his
paintings as genuine fakes. Here we can see that forgery differs from
appropriation as the forger tries to pass their work off as the original work
for financial gain, not artistic purposes.
Even though appropriation isn’t forgery there are still cases
where the law gets involved where copyright is concerned. There is a fair use
act for the use of other people’s copyrighted work. If a work is deemed
transformative it is not seem to be in breech of copyright, however what is
considered as transformative is disputable. Jeff Koons was sued for his use of
Art Rogers’ photo of a man and woman holding some puppies called ‘Puppies’. Koons
instructed Italian artisans to make a 3d sculptural replication of the image
entitled ‘String of Puppies’. “Koons claimed that
artistic freedom would be abrogated if artists could not make parodies or
create work that somehow showed the influence of other artists.” (Grant,
Daniel, 2012) The court ruled against Koons deeming that the piece didn’t
parody the original work. Even though this piece of work may have not parodied
the original work it was transformative and original, seen as the medium was
changed and it was made into a 3d work which didn’t look exactly the same as
the photo and would have been experienced in a completely different way. In the
artistic world the change of medium would have been considered as
transformative but the ordinary viewer has to be able to see it as
transformative and that was not apparent in this case.
Some philosophers have proposed that
originality be understood in relation to the properties of a work. “Frank Sibley (1985) equates
originality with "novelty," and he analyzes various senses of
originality in terms of the properties of the work, namely, that it
"differs from anything previously existing in relevant ways."”(Van Camp, Julie C, 2007)
Returning to koons’ work, his work may not have been seen transformative enough
but according to this it is original as it differs from anything previously
existing as his work features in a form that the photo had not existed in
before, which then would have created a new experience of the work.
James Elkins focuses exclusively on
properties of works in relation to others, a work is original if it has one of
these senses. “First,
what he calls "originary," are works "that appear to be without antecedent"
(…) This seems to approximate "novelty" in the sense of being
historically first, dependent on placing the work in a historical context as
the first to demonstrate a certain trait. The second sense,
"primacy," "refers mostly to itself," and also seems to
connote novelty as a historical fact. (…) The third, "uniqueness,"
refers to the qualities that distinguish an object from copies” (Van Camp, Julie C, 2007)
If we take this definition or originality
we can see how appropriation art can be considered as original. Taking example
from Sherrie Levine’s work again we can see that her work is original, as in a
historical context she was one of the first to appropriate in such an extreme
way in photographing someone else’s photography and the result being visually
the same as the original photographers images. Furthermore her work identifies
with the third sense, as her works are distinguishable from Evan’s photos as
they posses different qualities, primarily concept.
This shows that originality does
still exist and here we can see that a work of art, in particular appropriation
art, may not be original in the traditional sense but can be original in a new
sense. All work is derivative somehow of other things but it is the new
qualities that an appropriation artists adds to a work that can make it
original. This also applies to them asserting their authorship on their work,
as they are the creators of something new and this shows that the author can still
be important to a piece of work.
Bibliography
Baudrillard, Jean, 1983, Simulations, Semiotext(e) Foreign agents
sense, New York,
Benjamin, Walter, 2008, The work of art in the age of it technical
reproducibility and other writings on media, The Belknap press of Harvard
University, London (1)
Sonvilla-Weiss, Stefan, 2010, Mashup Cultures, Springerwien, New York
Van
Camp, Julie C, 2007, Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art. Journal of
Arts Management, Law, and Society. 36 (4), 247-258..
Posker, Dan & Patience,
Cameron, 2010, Appropriation Art: an
overview of copyright and consumer protection for artists, Arts Law, available
from: http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/appropriation-art-an-overview-of-copyright-and-consumer-protection-for-arti/
[accessed 3rd march 2013]
Irvin, Sherri, 2005,
Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art, Draft
for British
Journal of Aesthetics, 45, 123-137.
