Some time back, I talked here on A&P about image appropriation and artists re-interpreting works of others to produce newer work. This week, I found myself in Gramercy looking over works of Sherrie Levine at Nyehaus. She has made a career that involves pure appropriation and raises questions on the nature and context around her appropriated perspective of original artworks. In her works, she transmogrifies an original, sometimes iconic piece of art into a somewhat exact replica subverting some form or theme in it to produce her own works. In a world of copyright protection, Sherrie’s works seems to be an in-your-face holler which screams that a piece of art once made may be the sole property of the artist and but it is available for further manipulation, exploration and expansion as soon as it is in the public realm. Although I will not quote the exact prices for the works at the gallery, I found most of the works that were priced in six figure ranges to be sold.
Sherrie Levine, ‘Fountain (After Marcel Duchamp)’, 1991, Bronze, 14″ X 24″ X 14″
Oftentimes, I use ‘found’ images on the web. Even if I hate the use of the word ‘found’, I guess it seems appropriate for this discussion. I download them to my hard drive and let it sit and simmer for a period of time. I then permit my mind to lose/forget some of the image identifiers like who the image refers to, what was being conveyed in the image or where the image was taken etc. Three or six months later, I look at these images, re-interpret a select few in a social context that I find appropriate and paint from the image. In most paintings the contextual underpinning behind the painted face and original image do not have any parallels save the fact that the features match each other (to a certain degree). I continue to do so because the plethora of ‘found’ faces that I find online and off (magazines, books, sometimes my photographs etc.) gives me a vast sea of moods, expressions, emotions and countenances that I can then subvert to develop new perspectives (which may not have been intent of the original). Recently, I found a comment on my blog on this practice that asked me a question: “Is that right? Is this allowed?” Even if I can glibly point people who ask me questions like this to the works of Sherrie Levine, Joy Garnett and Richard Prince, the real truth is that I am still searching for the answer. Comments?
Of course, here I am reminded of a one liner I stumbled upon online:
“Some people do, others Duchamp”.
Sunil,
An interesting post and I need time to process.
But still, six figures for a bronzed urinal that’s a rip-off of Duchamp? As my Dad would’ve said, “That’s for people with more money than brains.”
What Duchamp did was humorous and I doubt very much it was meant to generate such attachment by the establishment he intended to tweak. The fact that all these years later, another artist blatantly rips off his art and sells it for a small fortune is just…sad. Based on this one piece, I don’t consider her an artist at all.
Huh…wonder what I’ll come up with after I think about this a bit? ;-)
I haven’t found Levine very interesting, but something different happens with the reflective bronze here. I see a headless torso with hands in a namaste prayer position. Maybe it’s Jesus.
Steve,
After looking at it for a long time, I did see it. Maybe it is Duchamp telling Levine – please stop this… I created this urinal addressing a completely different context.
I do not care much for Levine’s work either, but the fact that she dabbles in blatant appropriation should at least get us thinking on what might be its limits (especially in the online world of today)…
Wonder if you would feel OK if someone takes a picture you shot and appropriated it and produced art that conveys a fundamentally different outcome and perspective from what you had envisaged…
I’m fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist. I certainly think the sort of transformation you do is to be encouraged. By the way, have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces?
“I’m fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist”
Wow, Steve – I never did expect that from you. That is a very open fair-use point of view that not every photographer or artist might subscribe to.
Would you not want them to credit you as an inspiration atleast?
.
“have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces?”
I have often thought about this – especially in regard to self-portraits… but have never really followed up on it. Maybe a project for next year.
Well, I might expect acknowledgement somewhere, just as I’ve credited others who were inspirations, but I’d hardly insist or get upset at the lack of it. I retain sole capability of making high-quality prints of my photographs, but if anyone wants to use any on the low-resolution images here on A&P, or on my web site, I say go ahead. They’re not watermarked or labeled, and I’d be happy if they provide some enjoyment through someone else’s use.
I’ve decided that I’m going to disconnect my toilet, bronze it and sell it. My twist to the whole toilet as art thing? I’ll also bronze my toilet brush.
I’ll title it “A Swirl of Activity”
Now, now, Tree, such irreverence has not place in this high-falutin’ discussion. I see you have a reddish glow to your face — flushing, are we (add snort right here!)
Sunil, you’ve grabbed a topic which makes me sigh a lot, particularly considering the six figures. Levine has been mining this particular vein for years — I only wonder how she originally gained prestige. But that’s a different question.
As to the question of image useage, I’m really into something like the Creative Commons “attribution-Share Alike” license; it goes like this —
You are free to share and to remix (adapt) under the following conditions: attribution in a manner specified by the author, and share alike — that is, if you alter, transform or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same similar or compatible license.
As I understand it, the Creative Commons licenses are a response to the Disney copyright mafia, which to some extent has all of us clinching our art tightly to our chests and refusing to allow anything but eyes to deal with it.
I like a Commons concept in general, a gift economy which runs alongside and has equal weight as the moneyed one, and the kind of license that asks only that you pay it forward.
Besides, quilted art doesn’t exactly cry out for using elsewhere.
I think that the extended copyright laws that now exist in the US really inhibit creativity and using the past to improve the present; instead, they stultify growth and change and working with a community.
End of lecture.
Great words, Steve!!
Tree,
Scandalous, how dare you derive off Sherrie Levine’s work?
June,
Finally, I got to the subject that I was aiming to discuss.
When you allude to:
“Attribution in a manner specified by the author”
Would that constrain the appropriator to follow the original dictates specified by the author – example: If the author says “This image may only be used for the purposes of highlighting the effects of poverty”… Would that constrain the appropriator? Would the appropriator be able to use an altered, appropriated, derived work of the same for purposes other than to “highlight the effects of poverty”?
Loved your lecture!