Homework 4

To begin, I believe appropriation art is about sampling or reworking either another object or creation that comes from different source and incorporating it into one's own work. However, there is a fine line between appropriating something and downright stealing someone else's idea and claiming it as their own. Appropriation is present in everything from music (covers, remixes, and just straight up sampling), visual art and video art (either visually universal motifs or specific works from someone else), and virtually every artistic medium in between. When it comes to the term Fair Use, it provides a bit of freedom for the public to use someone's work without the need of notifying them or asking for permission. In regards to the relationship to Fair Use and artistic creations, I don't believe they are either friends nor enemies, because Fair Use does not allow the amount of freedom that would allow them to 'get away' with anything; at least in terms of creating new content. Fair Use is mostly about letting people use small excerpts from other works, usually for educational rather for commercial purposes; and usually if that work is no longer in print.

I was already familiar with Richard Prince's appropriation art before reading this article. His 'Cowboy" pieces were taken from photographs used in magazine advertisements and resulted in similar courtroom disputes. Whether or not Prince's art has meaning, it doesn't detract from the fact that is a form of appropriation. Artist's will always change other people's work to varying degrees but how to decide how much alteration is enough to not get someone into trouble is no small feat. Although I will admit that appropriation in art is much more obvious in visual art than it is in literature or music. I feel like are more instances than not the work visual artists appropriate from will get them into trouble. However I don't want to fall into the category of people who believe art always needs to have some sort of meaning. The artist may have no reason to make a piece of art, but the audience will always place meaning there if it has none, that how it works. Now when it comes to the internet and the circulation of visual media and how the public consumes, there's almost no way to control who sees it and what they chose to do with it, artistically or not. That's the risk internet artists take. Visual art isn't even the only thing that is appropriated daily on the internet. I feel like in this digital age, it's as easy as ever to trace back art to it's original creator, so even though people may appropriate other's work there's a much smaller possibility that someone else can take credit for all of it. There's also the issue of appropriation art being for profit, and whether or not the original artist will even care about it unless it jeopardizes their ability to make money off of their work, or if they don't get a portion of the money they think they deserve.

I think Richard Prince knows how to make money. I honestly think that's his goal and he found that appropriation was an easy way to do it. However, he's not the only one. There are thousands of instances where individuals or corporations have profited off of appropriation--whether in art or not. I don't think we can decide on whether or not he's a real artist or not because there's a very vague notion of what 'real' art is----it's very subjective. Whether or not I agree if he's a good artist or not, he accomplishes his goals, but that isn't to say that people who find his work problematic or even illegal shouldn't criticize him for it--they should! In regards to how I see appropriation--I think it can work and sometimes it shouldn't even be messed with. It really depends. If someone were to appropriate my work, I'm not sure if I'd be upset or not. It would really depend on the nature of that artist's work. However I am a firm believer of giving credit where credit is due.