Homework 5

I like the way that the courts have defined appropriation art, according to Barbara Pollack in her article for ARTNews: "[transforming] the original material as a way of commenting on, satirizing, or criticizing the source." So, taking this definition into consideration I'd define an appropriation artist as one who takes another's original work and puts their own personal touch on it with the intention of creating a new message. I really don't feel that the label "appropriation artist" is an umbrella term over all contemporary artists. There must be an abundance of people who are out there creating their own messages out of thin air - photographers, painters, and the like. 

I believe that it was less heard of in the 16th century to appropriate images. The tools to do so accurately (scanners, cameras, etc.) were just not yet invented. In this age, almost everyone either has a computer or has access to a computer. Not everyone has a fancy camera or painting materials - so for many people, appropriation is the most accessible way to create art. It's impossible to exclude technology when talking about this. Artists today are different than 16th century appropriation artists, simply because the way they can appropriate images or content has changed. The technological resources that have become available for appropriation artists has changed the process of how appropriation art comes into being, as well as increased the sheer number of appropriation artists there are. 

Titled "L.H.O.O.Q."
A work by Marcel Duchamp

To the left is an example of contemporary appropriation art, taken from Phaidon, this image was created by modern artist Marcel Duchamp. As you can see, all that he has done is given the lovely Mona Lisa a mustache and a goatee.  Duchamp drew the facial hair on a post card, and this work of art has been hailed as "a landmark of postmodernism". This gets under my skin a little, as I've drawn my fair share of mustaches on pictures, and I've gotten no recognition! This is certainly the most blatant form of appropriation I've seen.

"High art" - it seems to be a takeaway from the term "high culture", which refers to the upper class of a culture. High art includes paintings, the subjects of which are generally of the upper class. As a general definition, high art is art that is appreciated by those with a "refined" taste (although that's still pretty ambiguous if you ask me). According to The Rapidian, low art is art that is easily comprehended and can be appreciated by the masses. It seems to me that appropriation would change either high or low art into low art. Appropriation is a relatively recent and growing form of art, and it seems to appeal to the masses rather than to a select audience with a (decidedly) dignified taste.

In regards to Lichtenstein: I disagree, one hundred percent. She's getting too philosophical about things.  Do documentaries take events and place a specific message on them? Yes, but nobody has a copyright on events that happen in life.

The artist from the ARTNews article I have chosen is Sara VanDerBeek. I'll admit, my initial interest in her was due to her extremely cool last name, but she's actually done some admirable work. I have a lot of respect for artists in photography. In my opinion, it's a very difficult medium. Some of her work is appropriation in the simplest form: she photographs sculptures. The picture below is an example of her work. It's from the Museum of Contemporary Art in Cleveland, and the reason I think it works is because it essentially appropriates two different pieces of art and forces the viewer to examine them in the same frame. I think it's very interesting that this is how she chooses to express herself.