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?

Now that’s a great quote.

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?

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.

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?