Ownership & Appropriation, Part II: Appropriation of Specific Works

Click the jump for the second part of my essay examining appropriation!

 Warhol - "Marilyn Monroe"

Many artists – especially in the second half of the twentieth century – have made their livings by essentially reclaiming the artwork of their predecessors. Re-contextualization is often seen as the element necessary to transform something from plagiarism to original artwork. Parodies are a favorite of modern popular culture, often drawing plots, characters, and visual styles from copyrighted works. Despite their imitative appearance, they are appreciated for their humor and alternative perspective on the subject being parodied, and are generally covered under the U.S. fair use doctrine. Most members of the fine art world who appropriated art were not making parodies but were attempting to provide social commentary in another way: in many cases, by exploring the nature and philosophy of art. Andy Warhol, for example, made the move from commercial art to fine art around 1960. In doing so, he largely stopped producing hand-drawn illustrations and began co-opting pop culture: comic strips, product packaging, magazine photographs, and more. Many viewers at the time believed his new work to be over-commercialized and vulgar, and the repetitions of prints that eventually became his trademark were seen as uncreative.

 Warhol - "Four Colored Campbell's Soup Can"

What his critics failed to recognize was that Warhol’s apparently unoriginal art commented on the nature of both originality and art. His repetition, often in grids but sometimes in stacks or piles (when three-dimensional objects were involved) moved his repurposed imagery towards the abstract, transforming it into construction material for a new visual product. Using unusual color schemes helped him accomplish this goal of “abstracting” familiar shapes. His use of both repetition and color is exemplified by his Marilyn Monroe prints; though he did not take the original photograph used to create his silkscreen designs, he uses it as a tool to create something uniquely his. Similar effects can be seen in his oddly-tinted Campbell’s Soup collections. By taking popular culture images already being consumed by the public and elevating them to “fine art” – but in such a way that they were easy and inexpensive to reproduce and sell – Warhol was exposing the inherent commercialism of the fine art community.

 Warhol - "Brillo Boxes"

Warhol’s recreation of product packages further blurred the line between consumeristic and artistic forms of production. Using wooden boxes and silkscreen printing, Warhol meticulously created replicas of packages that could have been found in any store. With the Brillo boxes, Warhol again produced an alternate version of an existing design, but unlike the aforementioned prints, the intrigue of this project lay in the utter lack of visual difference between it and the original. It was largely seen as a commentary on the nature of art. “Brillo Box, to me,” said one art historian, “demonstrated that the difference between art and non-art is philosophical.” Here was a design that one would hardly glance at on a shelf in a supermarket, but when made by a known fine artist (as opposed to a basically anonymous product designer) and placed into a gallery setting, it was suddenly elevated to “art”. Without the use of an existing product design, the installation’s meaning would have had much less impact. Most modern art historians would likely agree that, though the images used were not Warhol’s initially, he earned ownership of them thanks to his unique application, fresh perspective, and additional commentary on the source.

 Marlboro cigarette advertisement

Photography is another medium that can be used as a tool for appropriation. When the photograph was invented in 1839 by Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre, it was primarily used as a straightforward and scientific method of recording images, but in time grew into a respected form of artistic expression. How does a photograph express a person’s creativity? It could be argued that photography is simply capturing a sight that already exists in the real world, and requires little creativity on the part of the photographer. All photography, from that point of view, is a type of appropriation of the everyday world around us. Lovers of photography cite the importance of the photographic eye, the ability to see and highlight an interesting composition or moment that would have gone unnoticed by a person without that particular artistic spark. A good photograph expands the viewer’s vision, allowing them to see beauty where they could not on their own.

 Prince - "Untitled (Cowboy)"

Now consider Richard Prince, a well-known and highly regarded photographer. One of his photos set an auction record in 2005, selling for $1.2 million. The director of the Guggenheim Museum even described him as an “icon of postmodernism” and “one of contemporary art’s foremost innovator.” However, much of his art is directly lifted from others’ work – a fact that he acknowledges openly, making him a particularly controversial figure. Prince is skilled in a number of artistic schools, but he is most known for his work in re-photography: taking photographs of existing photographs – usually advertisements or other “commercial” images – then enlarging and exhibiting the new photos. Like Warhol, he utilizes others’ creative output as raw material for his own art; however, instead of altering these images through use of repetition or dramatic changes to the color schemes, Prince merely crops them to eliminate any text and to make the composition more interesting. Prince is also similarly concerned with notions of commerciality between art and society. Whereas Warhol wanted to make his sources abstract, though, Prince intends to draw attention to the concrete source material and compel viewers to think about what it contains. One of his most famous projects was a collection of re-photographed Marlboro cigarette advertisements featuring cowboys participating in rugged, exciting, free-spirited activities. Of course, the cowboys in these advertisements were only actors, and their ruggedness was carefully calculated by Marlboro to feel authentic and call to mind a popular notion of Americana. Prince’s crops remove the photos from their original status as advertisements and remove any visual reference to cigarettes. His recontextualization highlights the irony in using lively, virile cowboys to promote such a debilitating product as cigarettes. Prince is encouraging viewers to consider the constructed nature and commercial intent of the scenes in the original advertisements, and how little they were truly related to the object being advertised.

 Krantz - "Stretchin' Out" 

Prince - "Untitled (Cowboy)"

Though his work is often crafted to send a message about its artistic source, Prince has been criticized for his appropriation more than Warhol was. Several photographers have taken legal action against him, though he has thus far been protected by fair use laws. Jim Krantz, one of the photographers on the Marlboro campaign, has not taken legal action, but he has been angered when people praise – and pay millions to own – Prince’s photos without realizing that Krantz created the original. Prince himself does not seem terribly concerned with the situation. “I never associated advertisements with having an author,” he said in an interview. This situation is in somewhat of an ethical gray area. Though Prince appears less respectful of the artists who created the original works he uses, if the art community accepts Warhol’s appropriation, it would be somewhat hypocritical to condemn Prince entirely.