Homework 5

An appropriation artist is someone who reworks another pre-existing creation in order to make something new; whether or not that new art is given a new look, purpose, or commentary. Appropriation, at least in art, is seen in virtually every creative medium possible: visual images, music, literature, film, fashion, etc... it's become such an engrained concept in the creative process that it will usually so unseen or unnoticed by the audience. I believe that today, most artists gain inspiration from something or someone that has proceeded them and will sometimes put certain elements of that work into their own, either as a commentary on that work or to simply enhance something that is completely un-related.

I do believe that the artists appropriating art today are working on a different playing field than the artist who appropriated hundreds of years ago. These days, the conflicts that arise from the rightful earning of monetary profit and recognition. Art is mostly pretentious at a 'professional' level and success is more often defined by money rather than influence or value of expression. Although its more universally seen in music, sampling/appropriation of other artists and songs is a common form of popular music--and this goes far beyond the concept of doing a simple cover. Now, artists have the sense to take anything they want from the world around them and converting it into a type of art they feel should exist. Lyricists take from classical literature, musicians can take an old song and completely change the genre it was written for, artists can take techniques and allusions from film or even technology to create a visual allusion, artists today have the whole creative spectrum to draw inspiration and influence from. I believe artists today see the art world with a lot more freedom, most likely because the mostly unrestricted content that can be obtained through the internet. Also, I feel like as a whole, artists are now less inclined to make art as commissions but more for themselves or to push themselves. We live in an age where internet recognition and public approval is sure-fire way to success and popularity. 

I do think Kelly's "Black Star Press" work has more taken away from it due to the artists race. Not to say that there's anything stopping him from creating any kind of artwork he feels like creating, but just because everything has the potential to be appropriated doesn't mean everything should. Even though the piece is not a commentary on race, his commentary on the circulation of certain images makes less sense and honestly matters less due to subject he chose to focus on in relation to what race he is. I think Miranda Lichtenstein has a point when she says that everything can be 'appropriated'. Mostly because, everything has happened in the past, whether it's a creative work or not, can be repurposed by someone and turned into something else for this time. 

The artist I wanted to research from the article is Sara VanDerBeek. She is a Baltimore, Maryland native and is known for her photographs sculptures and 'three-dimensional still-life assemblages' that she destroys right after using. VanDerBeek appropriates from classical sculpture that she studied and observed while traveling to different art museums across Europe. VanDerBeek is also best known for creating these photos with the purpose of showcasing these statues' relationship to the space they are placed in. I chose this artist because her purple-hued photographs of classical sculptures really caught my eye, and it seemed like her work is best appreciated in a three-dimensional and physical space (she makes very good use of installations).