I used to hate artists who refer to art historical images, whether through appropriation or more subtle reference. It struck me as elitist and dull. Why don’t they make their own images? And aren’t they attracting a really limited audience? But now I myself have started a new series with the aforementioned dreaded art historical references, and I am fascinated with other artists who do it.
Yasumasa Morimura is a Japanese artist who recreates scenes from famous paintings and inserts himself in the “protagonist” position. His end products are photos in which he pretty faithfully reproduced the painting, but with himself in it, often as a woman.
I think they are hilarious and fascinating. Some dismiss him as frivolous and superficial. But underneath the façade, or some would call it a gimmick, is an interesting commentary on race, gender, and history. About five years ago, Moimura’s art would have irritated me. Now I am mesmerized. So I have two questions here:
1. What do you think about art about art?
2. Have you ever had a turn around experience with art in which something you hate becomes something you love? Did it have anything to do with trying that hated thing in your own work?
Re commentary on race, gender, and history . Is it like Halloween, imagining being a different character? Or is it about remaining your own character but giving yourself different attributes?
How historical does the picture have to be? I would think that I could not substitute my person for David’s person on his raven picture without violating some laws. (How do I search for David’s raven picture on A&P?)
Leslie, there’s a long history of referring to art historical images within art, and it was very prevalent during the Renaissance, with many references both to ancient Roman works and the Italians’ contemporaries as well. At some point you might want to dig around and look at the history of the figures in Manet’s Luncheon on the Grass. He borrowed them from Giorgione, who in turn lifted them from a Roman frieze. I continued the tradition a number of years ago in my painting Luncheon With Manet, where I put them in my backyard, behind my father catching a snake with a stick (I don’t have a digital copy).
Can’t say I respond much to Yasumasa Morimura’s work. It reminds me of that poster I always see with James Dean in Hopper’s Nighthawks. But there are many other instances where I think art historical references have been used in a more interesting way. And of course James Joyce did some inventive things in Ulysses with Homer’s tale.
Birgit, here’s a link to Self-Potrait with Raven. Feel free to do whatever you want with it (not-for-profit, of course), but it might be more fun if you substitute yourself for the bird :)
Birgit,
I think appropriating from a contmeporary artist is sticky business, although Murimora has some Cindy Sherman that he puts himself into…this kind of doubles up the transformation of one’s identity, as she also inserts herself into paintings and film stills. Her work seems much more about the femal experience of what I call “identity shopping,” and women’s connection to glamourous stars.
There is that element of Halloween costuming in his work, but I think it runs a little deeper than that. Because he works in series, he really points out the white western bias in academic studies of art history (as he is an Asian man), and the preponderence of the dead white male “masters.” He also plays with the notion of the male gaze upon the female, esp in the Olympia piece. He turns that gaze on its head because of course he is a man dressed as a woman. I also think it is safe to say his work questions the whole social construct of gender identity, in a pop, drag queen sort of way.
David,
I am familiar with the history of Manet’s figures in the Luncheon painting, as well as Olympia. And those kind of references don’t bother me for some reason. I guess I used to be more miffed by contemporary artists who do it, because it feels less “sincere” and more of a one liner. That is not necessarily a rational belief, just a prejudice.
You are not alone in not caring much for Murimora. Which artists do you think use art historical references in an interesting way? I am on the lookout.
Yeah, I guess it’s the one-liner aspect that I have trouble with. Funny as a postcard, but that’s about it.
As far as contemporary artists who borrow in an interesting way, I’ll have to think about that. I was very interested in the idea when I was in grad school, but I’ve been focusing on very different issues lately. I do remember in my thesis making a distinction between quoting (which I’m interested in) and appropriating (which mostly bores me). I’d say Beck (Mutations) and David Lynch (end of Wild At Heart) are both good examples of artists who borrow in an interesting way. Actually, if you can find any examples of J.S.G. Boggs’ money drawings online somewhere, they’re pretty fascinating.
I’m new here and I’ve just been watching posts for a few days. But I really wanted to say something about this one. Most of the work I’ve seen like this, directly imports the artist. That really annoys me because it seems to be they are inserting their ego more than anything else. It’s hard to get around how they have portrayed themselves, and see the overall changes in the image and what the whole point is. There is usually some point to the transformed image but who cares at the point. The secret is locked in some personal portrayal. And rarely do I find the subtext all that moving or interesting. But I agree with the other guy Sherman is a good example of how it can work out well.
This kind of art is elitist in that only a fairly small audience will “get” it. But for that audience, based on the shared understanding of the referenced original, it’s possible for the artist to attempt a much stronger and more specific communication. Of course, there’s still plenty of room for interpretation and mis-interpretation.
From an abstract point of view, if we think of an artwork as a response to something in the world, why shouldn’t that something be another artwork? That would seem to be especially appropriate for an artist to respond to. There are more or less subtle ways of responding, but the kind of blatant reference that Morimura uses doesn’t bother me at all.
On Leslie’s second question, an answer for me might be oversaturated color in photography. I’ve long detested overdone postcard scenic vistas, and part of my reaction was to work in black and white. But on a recent project involving close-up detail abstracts, I’ve found that I really like grossly jacking up the saturation to get patterns much stronger than the “real thing.”
David,
can you give me an example of an artist who quotes versus one who appropriates? I am not sure what the distinction is…
Evan,
I used to agree with your assessment, and I think my annoyance came a lot from the ego I felt was involved, as you wrote. I guess I am more willing to get beyond that at this point. I sometimes wonder what th e point is, such as in the work of David Salle, but in Morimura (sorry I keep misspelling his name above!), I do see the points and they interest me.
Steve,
I agree that artists have particular things to say about other art. And we certainly spend a ton of time looking at art, so it is a big part of our world, as you put it.
Interesting example about jacking up the saturation of photos. A lot of digital art (not necessarily photography) used to make me snore until I tried to make images using the same programs and began to appreciate the subtleties and challenges.
How do you put your post in a category on A and P, by the way
Hi Leslie, I just got back from lunch and have some answers for a couple of your earlier questions, as well as for your new one.
A contemporary artist (not living, though) who has borrowed in an interesting way is Lichtenstein. He started by basically copying comics, then used the visual language of the comics to create abstract works. I saw a set of paintings he did that recreated several of Monet’s Rouen Cathedral pieces, but using his benday dots. They were brilliant and strangely moving.
For someone who quotes, I’d say look no further than the Manet painting we talked about earlier. You don’t need to know where the figures came from to appreciate Luncheon, but if you do know it’s a bonus.
As far as someone I didn’t like at first but changed my mind about, there’s Basquiat. To be fair, my first impression of him was from a NYT article about the hot new painters of the 80s, and I thought his work was junk. But then I saw his paintings in person at Mary Boone and was knocked out by them.
Also, for “quoting”, there’s the Beatles song Back In The USSR. The Beatles were huge Beach Boys fans, and vice versa.
For me much of the difference between quoting and appropriating is the spirit in which it is done. Quoting is a form of tribute, or acknowledgement of someone’s sources or influences. The whole appropriation thing was done with an attitude of trying to undermine the idea of individual authorship. Sort of a Marxist attitude toward personal property, including creative works. But of course a number of the “appropriation” artists made a lot of money, and I never heard about any of them “redistributing” their wealth :)
Leslie,
To set categories, either before posting or when editing afterward, look for the categories menu on the right side of the admin page. “Uncategorized” is on by default, so turn that off when checking other categories (however many you want). You can probably create your own new categories, but I haven’t tried to do that yet.
Leslie,
When you are writing or editing a post you should see a column of blue bars on the right. One of those expands out to be the category system.
As to the substance of this post – I see no reason why an artist shouldn’t respond to other art, and make new art in doing so. However, in the same way that making a picture of a [insert item of beauty of choice] doesn’t automatically make a beautiful picture, making a picture about art doesn’t automatically make the new work good art (or even art at all).
I think it fairly natural that any one person’s opinion about a work will change over time. They bring to the work their life experiences, opinions and tastes. It would seem odd if, at, say, ten years remove some of those factors hadn’t changed substantially. And one of the important experiences that you can bring to a work under view is your own art – so if you have tried something similar, or been practicisng the relevant techniques or tools, then you are likely to react differently.
David,
For me much of the difference between quoting and appropriating is the spirit in which it is done.
I understand the temptation to say this, but given that it is at least likely that you can’t tell – in the same way that it is very difficult to deduce intent after the fact in any aspect of art – is this really such a big distinction as you suggest?
I mean, if somebody labels a work ‘intentionally stolen as a part of my marxist idealolgy’ then you could be sure, but short of that…..
Colin, I guess I have to go with whatever I’m getting from it. A lot of the work done in the 90s was labeled ‘intentionally stolen as a part of my marxist ideology’, or at least that’s how it was discussed and promoted. But as you mention above, there’s nothing automatic about one’s choice of subject or concept yielding good (or bad) work. If someone can do something I find compelling using someone else’s work as a starting point, I’m all for it. But most of the self-defined “appropriation” work I’ve seen leaves me with the “so what” response.
Leslie,
Your post brings up serval issues. You started off saying you didn’t like this style but now you have started a series on it. Can you share some of those images so we can get an idea of your sprirt of appropriating?
I’ve had this site bookmarked for a couple of weeks now and I’ve enjoyed what I’ve seen.
The post and the subsequent comments raise a plethora of fascinating and possibly controversial issues. Probably owing to my education I have always enjoyed and respected allusion to other works in whatever medium I was experiencing. All artists, be they film-makers, jazz musicians, dancers, etc., should have a thorough knowledge of the history of their chosen medium. Equipped with that history it is unlikely they will create without on occasion referencing other works, whether it be conscious or not.
And we live in a Post-Modern world? Or is Post-Modernism dead and we are now living in a Post-Post Modern world? The Post-Modern had no scruples whatsoever about using utilizing anything and everything to achieve its desired impact. Are these pieces more of Post-Modernism?
And is it possible to create in a total vacuum?
Leslie,
What an interesting post. I think this love-hate concept in art is something very deep, because the things we “hate” about art can be the things that affect us the most. Later, that “hate” can turn to “love.”
Art about art has always been a standard practice for artists. Michelangelo’s art is, among other things, about classical Greek art (as seen through Roman copies). Rogier van der Weyden’s portrait style was a reference to van Eyck’s.
Dan Bodner said to me that what we painters must remember is that we only at best are adding a few sentences to what has been a very long conversation through history.
What interesting responses – great! And thanks for the techie advice as well.
David,
I see your difference between appropriation and quoting. However, I see artists who appropriate as not necessarily “undermining” but rather deconstructing (overused word but appropriate to my meaning) the notion of individual authorship and the focus on originlaity that modernism promoted. I agree that many artists seem to do it in a way that is disrespectful of the original artist, to say the least, and that is when it can go wrong. And that is what triggers the annoyance in me, or did (still does, really, until I make myself look further). It makes me immediately suspicious. I am attached to this deconstruction of indiviuality partly because it blew open the whole individual solitary genius myuth that has been ansd stillis so prevelant in the art world. And it provided for all sorts of examination of non western culture and identity issues outside of the “cannon.” So I give some allowances to the artists who chose this particular route because I enjoy the questiosn it raises, such as the thoughts here in response to this post. Now, would I buy one for thousands of dollars and put it up in my house? Probably not…
Colin,
Yes, thank goodness our points of view change about particular art and artists over time. We would worry if it didn’t (and have to check our own pulse). But I guess what surprised me was the extreme way in which this happened to me in this case, and that I had no plans of appropriating at all, and in fact had a lot of disdain for contemporary artists who did it. And then, POP!, as if from nowhere I did it myself and rather like the results so far, and have sold a couple (always seductive). The same way I have “fallen” into certain subject matter – it seems to show itself to me on my radar screen, rather than me picking it persay – does that sound off the wall?
…we only at best are adding a few sentences to what has been a very long conversation through history.
Now that’s a great quote.
Evan,
Yes, I will show some of mine, but unfortunately my intial digital photos of them did not turn out well so I have to redo them. I plan to post them on my website within then next week or so. This thread will probably be talked out by then, but feel free to check them out and let me know what you think. They are tiny paintings, and very tongue in cheek, without being disrepsectful I hope…
Culture Ghost,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, very postmodern, I would say, and very much in the spirit of “anything and everything” is fair game for art because individual “genius” and the modern cannon of masterpieces is all up for grabs. I don’t know where we are in terms of post post modernism, or neo post modernism (blech), as I do noy keep up with current critical theory discourse (only so much time in a day)…
But I appreciate the reminder from you and others that we don’t work in a vacuum, and part of the joy of making art is in talking to other artists.
Karl,
I love that thought from Dan Bodner. Yes.
And I think it is salient that this is something that has gone on throughout art history. However, it has only been the latest versions of it that I have found so questionable. Why is that, when it seems to be just continuing the “long conversation?’ I am not sure. Maybe because what is happening to today is being made by my contemporaries, my “colleagues,” and I have an extra criticaL eye towards them. And maybe because postmodernism means that so much is up for grabs (even the idea of “quality” in art) that I want to weed out things to create a more ordered little art world for myself?