Appropriation (art)

Definition

To appropriate something is to take possession of it. In the visual arts the term appropriation is often used in a general way to refer to the use made of borrowed elements in the creation of new work. These borrowed elements might include images, forms or styles from art history or popular culture, or materials and techniques from non-art contexts. Since the 1980s the term has also been used more specifically to describe the process of quoting the work of another artist to create a new work. The new work may or may not alter the original.

History

Aspects of appropriation can be seen in practically all areas of visual art history if one considers the basic act of making art is the borrowing of images or concepts from the surrounding world and reinterpreting them into artwork. For example Leonardo da Vinci can be classified as an ‘appropriation’ artist by some as he used recombinant methods of appropriation, borrowing from sources as diverse as biology, mathematics, engineering and art and re-synthesizing them into inventions and artworks.

Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque are considered by some to be the first to appropriate items from a non-art context into their work. In 1912, Picasso pasted an actual piece of oil cloth onto the canvas. Subsequent compositions, like Guitar, Newspaper, Glass and Bottle, 1913 (figure 1) in which Picasso used newspaper clippings to create forms, were categorized as synthetic cubism. The two artists incorporated aspects of the ‘real world’ into their canvases, opening up discussion of signification and artistic representation.

Five years later, in 1917, Marcel Duchamp introduced the idea of the ‘readymade’. In that year he entered “Fountain” into the ‘American Society of Independent Artists’ exhibition. The work consisted of a urinal, lying on its side atop a pedestal with the signature “R. Mutt” (figure 2). The urinal was neither original nor rare, Duchamp’s ‘creativity’ as an artist lies in the gesture of selecting the urinal as an art piece and displaying it in an artistic context. Duchamp also went so far as to use existing art in his work, appropriating a copy of the Mona Lisa into his piece "L.H.O.O.Q"

The Dada movement, of which Duchamp was a part of, continued with the appropriation of everyday objects, but their appropriation was not an attempt to elevate the “low” to “high” art status, rather it was to create art in which chance and randomness formed the basis of creation. Dada artists included Hugo Ball, Emmy Hennings, Jean Arp, Hans Richter, Richard Hueslsenbeck, Andre Breton, Tristen Tzara, and Francis Piccaba. A reaction to oppressive intellectual rigidity in both art and everyday society; its works were characterized by a deliberate irrationality and the rejection of the prevailing standards of art. Kurt Schwitters was producing art at the same time as the dadaists and his “merz” works share a similar sense of the bizarre. These works were built from found objects and took the form of large constructions that would later be called ‘installations’.

The surrealists, coming after the dada movement, the surrealists also incorporated the use of ‘found’ objects such as Meret Oppenheim’s “Object (Luncheon in Fur)”. These objects took on new meaning when combined with other unlikely and unsettling objects.

Another art movement utilizing appropriation was Fluxus whose members blended different artistic disciplines including visual art, music, and literature. Throughout the 1960s and '70s they staged "action" events, engaged in politics and public speaking, and produced sculptural works featuring unconventional materials. The group even appropriated the postal system in developing mail art. The performances sought to elevate the banal by appropriating it as ‘art’ and dissembling the high culture of serious music.

Robert Rauschenberg used what he dubed ‘combines’, literally combining readymade objects such as tires or beds, painting, silk-screens, collage, and photography. Similarly, Jasper Johns, working at the same time as Rauschenburg, encorporated found objects into his work. Johns also appropriated symbolic images such as the American Flag or the target symbol into his work.

Along with artists such as Roy Lichtenstein and Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol appropriated images from commerical art and popular culture as well as the techniques of these industries. Often called "Pop Artists", they saw the permeation of mass popular culture as the main vernacular culture, shared by all and irrespectful of education. These artists fully engaged with the emphemera produced from this mass produced culture, embracing expendibility and distancing themselves from the evidence of an artist's hand.

Appropriation art had its heyday in the 1980’s with artists such as Sherri Levine. Levine often quotes entire works into her own, for example photographing photographs of Walker Evans. Challenging ideas of originality, drawing attention to relations between power, gender and creativity, consumerism and commodity value, the social sources and uses of art, Levine plays with the theme of ‘almost same’.

Also working during the 1980’s are artists such as Richard Prince. During the 1970’s and 1980’s Prince re-photographed advertisements such as Marlborough Cigarettes or photo journalism shots. Prince’s work spoke to issues of materialism and the idea of spectacle over lived experience.

Appropriation art can be used to comment on more than just commercial or “low” culture. Joseph Kosuth appropriated images to engage with philosophy and epistemological theory. Other artists working during this time with appropriation are Jeff Koons, Barbara Kruger, and Malcom Morley.

In the 1990's artists continue to use appropriation art, using it as a medium rather to address theories and social issues, rather than the focus of the work itself. Damien Loeb uses film and cinema to comment on themes of simulacrum and reality. Christian Markley, Deborah Cass, Damien Hirst, and Damien Hirst are other examples of high profile artists working at this time.

Artists working today also continue to encorporate non art elements and quote from existing art. For example Cory Arcangel encorporates aspects of cultural nostalgia through re-working vintage video games and computer software. Other contemporary appropriation artists include the Chapman brothers, Benjamin Edwards, Nikki Lee, Paul Pfeiffer, Pierre Huyghes, and Rico Gatson.

Appropriation Art and Legal Issues

The very nature of appropriation art, the borrowing of elements for new work, brings up a number of contentious legal issues. One debate is the extent to which appropriation art is sufficiently original. In the case of appropriation the expressive form (as opposed to merely the idea) of the original work is copied. A number of case law examples have been brought forth that investigate the division between transformation of a work and simple derivation of a work.

Andy Warhol was sued a multiple times by photographers whose work he appropriated and silk screened into multiples. Patricia Caulfield was one such photographer who had taken a picture of flowers for a photography demonstration for a photography magazine. Warhol had covered the walls of Leo Castelli’s New York gallery in 1964 with the silk screened reproductions of Caulfield’s photograph. After seeing a poster of his work in a bookstore, Caulfield claimed ownership of the image and while Warhol was the author of the successful silk screens, he settled out of court, giving Caulfield a royalty for future use of the image as well as two of the paintings.

Another artist confronted with issues of copyright in his appropriation work is Jeff Koons. Photographer Art Rogers brought suit against Koons for copyright infringement in 1989. Koons work, “String of Puppies” was a sculptural reproduction of Rogers’ black and white photograph that had appeared on an airport greeting card that Koons had bought. While claiming fair use and parody for his defense, Koons lost the case partially due to the tremendous success he had as an artist. The parody argument also failed in as the appeals court drew a distinction between creating a parody of modern society in general and a parody directed at a specific work, finding that parody of a specific work, especially a very obscure one, was to weak to justify the fair use of the original.