BEYOND IMITATION AND INFLUENCE.

THE NOTION OF APPROPRIATION IN MODERN

AND CONTEMPORARY FINE ARTS

An undergraduate thesis presented to Central Saint

Martins College, The University of the Arts London

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Culture, Criticism and Curation

MARIA GONTARCZUK

13 February 2017

1
 Table of contents

Abstract 3

Introduction 4
Origins 7

Appropriation, Postmodernism and 15

Beyond

Copyright and appropriations 20

Influence 25

- ‘The Executioner and Justice’ by 28

John Heartfield

- ‘Photo Op’ by Kennardphillipps 34

- ‘Some Living American Women 39

Artists: Last Supper’
by Mary Beth Edelson

- ‘Puberty’ by AK Dolven 42

Imitation 46

- ‘Mystic Truth (Calling Bruce)’ by 51

Barbara Visser

- ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ by 54

Adam Norton

- ‘New Portraits’ by Richard Prince 58

Conclusion 62

Bibliography 64

List of Illustrations 70

2
Abstract

This dissertation will explore the notion of appropriation in modern and contemporary fine

arts. Appropriation as an artistic concept will be divided into two branches which derive

from, or to a certain extent are based on, the idea of artistic ‘borrowing’: imitation and

influence. Examples of appropriation art will be given in this dissertation and will prove that

either imitation or influence are predominant contextual or aesthetic components of

appropriation in art. Moreover, it will be argued that the meaning and recognition of

appropriation as an art practice have changed throughout the history and criticism of art. This

paper will consider examples of different approaches to appropriation which represented

changes in the perception of authorship and autonomy of an artwork. The dissertation will

furthermore consider the aspect of copyright, a subject indivisible from the discussion on

appropriation and legal rights. Overall, it will be proved that appropriation as an art practice

concerns various aspects of art and therefore it cannot be classified as just one category or

artistic tendency, but rather as a component which constitutes, supports and interpenetrates

other art techniques or movements.

3
Introduction

Since the 1980s, when it was introduced as a new artistic form of expression, appropriation

has been present in contemporary visual arts, including high art as well as pop culture. The

history of art shows that most products of art are influenced and shaped by concepts and

artworks created previously. Appropriation in art is fully based on taking and reusing things

from the past which are either products of consumerism, or culture, or works created by other

artists. As a creative form of artistic expression, appropriation ‘re-translates’ a given object

by changing its meaning or by providing a critical commentary to it. What is supposed to

differentiate appropriation from thoughtless copying is an artistic purpose that stands behind

every appropriated piece.

Appropriation in art is often the subject of critique which is usually conditioned by an

inability to decide whether certain artists went beyond inspiration or justified imitation or,

more importantly, whether they crossed the limits of good taste. The recent case of Richard

Prince versus Ashley Salazar proves that appropriation in the fine arts is a problematic issue

(il.1). An article published in The Art Newspaper states: ‘The artist and his former dealer

Gagosian Gallery have been sued by a California-based makeup artist and model over a work

from his latest series. Ashley Salazar filed her lawsuit in June after she discovered that Prince

had appropriated a mirror selfie decorated with cat memes from her Instagram account.’1

Richard Prince is one of the most recognisable appropriation artists, as seems to be proved by

his recently-gained nickname ‘Master of Appropriation’.2 Prince’s art is often considered a

1
Halperin, Julia, ‘Instagram model and makeup artist sues Richard Prince over copyright infringement’ in The
Art Newspaper, www.theartnewspaper.com, (August 26, 2016).
2
‘The Art of Copying: Ten Masters of Appropriation’, www.artsy.net, (February 11, 2014).
4
violation of intellectual properties, as there is no clear line between the originals and the

results of appropriation. Therefore, it is usually difficult to determine whether the things

Prince creates can in fact be called art and not simply ordinary examples of forgery.

Il. 1 On the left: the original photograph of Ashley Salazar,

On the right: Appropriated work by Richard Prince
Image credit: www.theartnewspaper.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

In the article about Prince’s controversial artwork Hannah Jane Parkinson tried to find and

define the presence of authenticity in his practice. As she aptly observed: ‘It’s interesting,

though, that some appropriation in art is seen as acceptable in the public consciousness, some

not. Warhol: of course. Sampling at the birth of hip-hop – well, sure. Found object art like

Duchamp’s Fountain?’3 Indeed, Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’, as one of the most significant

examples of Dada art, is exempt from discussion on copyright. It is therefore interesting to

observe that Prince’s art is branded as appropriation, while others were copying things way

before appropriation was officially defined as an art movement. Prince’s controversial art as
3
Parkinson, Hannah Jane, ‘Instagram, an artist and the $100,000 selfies – appropriation in the digital age’ in The
Guardian, www.theguardian.com, (July 18, 2015).
5
well as many other examples of ‘artistic forgeries’, prove that appropriation as a form of

visual expression is a subject of ongoing debates regarding its artistic conceptualisation.

The limits of appropriation art are blurred; therefore each example of appropriated artwork

should be examined individually. Appropriation can be divided into two forms of artistic

approach: influence or imitation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, influence is

‘the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or

something, or the effect itself’.4 In terms of appropriation art, a subject of influence would be

an original artwork which has an impact on artists and allows them to create a new piece as a

formal or contextual response to the original artwork. On the other hand, imitation is ‘a thing

intended to simulate or copy something else’.5 Imitation refers to borrowing entire originals.

However, similarly to influence, artworks made through imitation create an original context

and provide an artistic response to appropriated pieces.

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine different examples of appropriation in the fine

arts and determine whether they use imitation or influence. This paper will focus on some key

problematic issues such as definitions of authorship and originality. Subsequently, the

dissertation will discuss diverse forms of appropriation that constitute either influence or

imitation. The main aim of this dissertation will be to determine the purpose behind

appropriation art in modern and contemporary practice.

4
Definition of ‘influence’ in: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/influence, Accessed 5 October 2016.
5
Definition of ‘imitation’ in: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imitation, Accessed 5 October 2016.
6
Origins

The term ‘appropriation’ derives from the Latin ad, meaning ‘to’, and proprius, that is,

something ‘own or personal’.6 The combination of the two words results in the verb

appropriare, which can be translated as ‘to make one’s own’.7 In other words, ‘to

appropriate’ means to take something from the original and transform it for one’s own use.

Robert Nelson argues that ‘Appropriate also has more sinister connotations, implying an

improper taking of something and even abduction or theft’.8 Nelson’s definition is, however,

linked to cultural appropriations which evoke colonialist practices. Cultural appropriation

involves, for instance, taking elements from a colonised culture and adapting them to the

culture of the colonisers. David Evans noted: ‘Appropriation was in fact integral to

colonialism. Not surprisingly, a major theme in the texts represented in post colonialism is

the re-taking of that which is possessed without authority’.9

Cultural appropriation usually has negative connotations and is often considered a

vandalisation of cultural and ethnic heritage. However, appropriation considered as an artistic

term more likely refers to ‘artwork’s adoption of preexisting elements’.10 Appropriation in art

refers to either the adaptation of products of high culture such as paintings, sculptures, or

musical pieces, or the transformation of examples from popular culture and mass production.

Hal Foster defined appropriation as ‘art engaged in a sometimes critical, sometimes collusive

6
Hoad, Terry, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, (London: Oxford University Press 1993),
p. 20.
7
Ibid.
8
Nelson, Robert, ‘Appropriation’ in Critical Terms for Art History. Second Edition, ed. by Robert Nelson,
Richard Shiff, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996), pp. 160-173.
9
Evans, David, ‘Introduction: Seven Types of Appropriation’ in Appropriation: Documents of Contemporary
Art ed. by David Evans, (London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2009), pp. 12-23.
10
Nelson, Robert, op. cit., p. 162.
7
reframing of high-artistic and mass-cultural presentations’.11 This definition opens up a

spectrum of possible forms of appropriation and proves that examples of contemporary

appropriation are varied.

Many art theorists look for traces of the earliest appearance of appropriation in cubist

collages, like those made by Pablo Picasso and George Braque in the first half of the

twentieth century. However, the roots of appropriation in art lie in much earlier periods,

starting from Late Roman and Early Christian Art.12 It appears that the Romans copied

sculptures produced in Ancient Greece; in addition, Roman catacombs were appropriated and

reused by Christian Art.13 Copying the Old Masters was one of the most dominant artistic

practices in the Renaissance and the Baroque eras. For instance, the famous Venus painted by

Giorgione was appropriated by Titian, later on by Goya among others, and in the nineteenth

century by Manet.14 (il. 2, 3, 4).

Il.2 Giorgione, ‘Venus’, 1510, Image credit: www.fineartamerica.com,

Accessed 27th January 2017.

11
Foster, Hal, ‘Signs taken for wonders’ in Art in America, vol.74, no.6 (July 1986), p. 139.
12
Kinney, Dale, ‘Instances of Appropriation in Late Roman and Early Christian Art’ in Essays in Medieval
Studies, vol. 28 (2012), pp. 1-22.
13
Richter, Jean Paul, ‘Early Christian Art in the Roman Catacombs’ in The Burlington Magazine for
Connoisseurs, vol. 6, no.22 (January 1905), pp. 262, 286-293.
14
Chan, Victor, Rubens to Picasso: Four Centuries of Master Drawings, (Alberta: University of Alberta,
Department of Art and Design 1995).
8
Il.3 Titian, ‘Venus of Urbino’, 1538
Image credit: www.italian-renaissance-art.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Il. 4 Edouard Manet, Olympia, 1863

Image credit: www.manet.org, Accessed 27th January 2017.

9
In pre-modern art, skill in artistic imitation denoted the real talent of an artist. To become a

reputable painter, ‘an artist must place himself within a tradition and emulate the genius of

past masters such as Raphael’.15 On the other hand, Realism, according to Welchman, was

entirely based on appropriation.16 Realists tended to ‘cut out’ scenes from everyday life in

order to place them within a new, different context. For instance, Gustave Courbet’s intention

in painting ‘Burial at Ornans’ was not to represent a cortege but to break with the romantic

manner and to denude the hypocrisy of French society.17

Along with the birth of modernism, the notion of an artist as a creator grew, and originality

started to be considered as one of the key values of art. Modernism continued the earlier

romantic ideas of artistic ‘origination’, individual genius and self-expression. Traces of the

past were rejected in favour of an appreciation of nature as opposed to culture. Rosalind

Krauss described modernism as an artistic phenomenon that was ‘founded upon a blindness

towards or repression of copying’.18 In her book The Originality of the Avant Garde and

Other Modernist Myths she talks about modernist artists, such as Mondrian, whose obsession

was the ‘grid’, or in other words, the aim of attaining origination and artistic purity.19 This is

probably why most art historians find the origins of appropriation in postmodernism, which

was a significant change from modernist customs.

15
McClean, Daniel, ‘Piracy and authorship in contemporary art and the artistic commonwealth’ in
Copyright and Piracy: An Interdisciplinary Critique, ed. by Bently, Lionel; Davis, Jennifer; Ginsburg, Jane,
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010), p. 311.
16
Welchman, John, Art After Appropriation. Essays on Art in the 1990s, (San Diego: University of California
2001), p. 9.
17
Fried, Michael, ‘The structure of Beholding in A Burial at Ornans’ in Courbet’s Realism, ed. by Michael
Fried, (Chicago: university of Chicago Press 1992), pp. 11-148.
18
Krauss, Rosalind, ‘The Originality of the Avant-Garde’ in The Originality of the Avantgarde and Other
Modernist Myths, ed. by Rosalind Krauss, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1986), p. 50.
19
Krauss, Rosalind, op. cit., pp. 50-61.
10
However, Welchman noted that ‘the first horizon [of appropriation in art] [was] constituted

by the work of the so-called neo-dadaists and the pop artists of the 1950s and 1960s. [It was]

a moment that both the critics (Burger) and advocates (Andreas Huyssen) of these

movements have claimed as the inception of postmodernism itself’.20 It can be argued that it

was Marcel Duchamp’s invention of ready-mades which developed the idea of artistic

repetition and usage of already existing objects in artwork.

Some appropriations were also introduced to surrealism. Surrealists used so - called ‘found

objects’, giving them a new meaning and purpose. An example of surrealist appropriation is

Meret Oppenheim’s ‘Object’ (il.5). Oppenheim appropriated an already made teacup, spoon

and saucer by covering them in fur. Consequently, the appropriated ‘tea-set’ lost its original

functionality in favour of the new artistic concept.

Il.5 Meret Oppenheim, ‘Object’, 1936

Image credit: www.moma.org, Accessed 27th January 2017.

20
Ibid. ‘Grids’, pp. 8-23.
11
Despite the earlier examples of appropriation in arts, the place of origin of more direct and

straightforward appropriation practices is considered to be New York in the 50s and 60s.21

The fundamentals of appropriation are also associated with the mechanical revolution, which

entailed technological developments such as photography and mass-production. According to

Walter Benjamin, mechanical reproduction resulted in the loss of ‘aura’, the function of

which is to represent the originality of art.22 Benjamin claimed that the reproduction of

artwork caused aura and the authenticity of pieces to disappear. For him, art can only be

original while present in time and space; therefore a reproduced artwork can never be fully

present. In relation to appropriation art, his theory opens up a discussion about the definition

of originality and the authenticity of an artwork. Translating Benjamin’s theory into the

discussion about appropriation, it can be argued that appropriated artwork lacks aura due to

the use of mass production, or- copying. Appropriation removes the initial authenticity of an

artwork but it also generates a new, distinct context which separates a new piece from the

original version.

The growth of appropriation in postmodernism is linked to the rejection of European

modernism and abstract expressionism.23 The rising popularity of photography contributed to

Robert Rauschenberg’s and Andy Warhol's pop art practice and subsequently to conceptual

art as well as performance and earth art. In the late 70s, appropriation was developed by neo-

expressionists and a group of photographers like Sherrie Levine and Barbara Kruger. Some

art historians argue that postmodernist appropriation was associated mainly with

poststructuralism, which consisted of theories on the autonomy of artwork and the role of an

artist. Joan Marter states: ‘Artists inspired by poststructuralism rejected the concept of

21
Evans, David, op. cit., p. 15.
22
Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, (London: Penguin 2008).
23
Welchman, John, op. cit., p. 9.
12
autonomous artwork that referred ultimately back to the individual artist. Instead, they

created artworks that are themselves frames of reference that often result in the sense of

radical doubt concerning the ultimate meaning of the work’.24

In the essay The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes discussed the notion of authorship in

20th century postmodernist reality.25 To him, the position of the author (in the romantic

understanding- the creator of art) must be changed to a position of ‘scriptor’, whose role is

only to deliver an artwork. According to Barthes: ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost

of the death of the author’.26 Foucault noted that the concept of the author is tyrannical as it

restricts the free thinking and experiencing of a piece by its readers.27 In appropriation art,

this notion of authorship is somehow lost. It is often difficult to assign an appropriation

artwork to a particular artist, especially when the original and the appropriation look

identical. Also, in appropriation the authorship is somehow mutual - artists could not create

their pieces without the authors of the originals. Therefore, Barthes’s theory of authorship can

be applied to postmodern art and appropriations.

In 1977, Artist’s Space in New York opened the ‘Pictures’ exhibition curated by Douglas

Crimp.28 The exhibition consisted of appropriations of images taken from photo books,

newspapers and other objects of consumer culture. The exhibit resulted in the coining of a

new term in art history: ‘The Picture Generation’, which refers to artists who were active

during the 70s and 80s and whose artistic practice was based on appropriation. In the same

24
Marter, Joan, The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), p.
167.
25
Barthes, Roland, ‘The Death of the Author’ In Art and Interpretation: An Anthology of Readings in Aesthetics
and the Philosophy of Art, ed. by Eric Dayton (Peterborough: Broadview 1998), pp. 383-386.
26
Ibid. p. 385.
27
Foucault, Michel, ‘What is an Author?’ in The Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rainbow, (New York:
Pantheon Books 1984), pp. 101-120.
28
Rowe, Hayley, ‘Appropriation in Contemporary Art’ in Inquires Journal, vol.3, no.6 (2011),
www.inquiriesjournal.com, Accessed 15 October 2016.
13
year Rosalind Krauss, Jeremy Gilbert - Rolfe and Annette Michelson established an academic

journal, ‘October’, in which, for the first time, they undertook a discussion about

appropriation art.29

29
Krauss, Rosalind; Michelson, Annette, ‘About October’ in October, 1, (Spring 1976), pp. 3–5.
14
Appropriation, Postmodernism and Beyond

Rosalind Krauss describes the phenomenon of appropriation as one of the key features of

postmodernism. According to her, acts of appropriation highlighted the division between

modernism and postmodernism.30 Moreover, Paul Duro states that appropriation was ‘the

endgame of the revolt against ‘‘modernist aesthetic categories’’ initiated in the 1960s by

conceptual art’.31 Appropriation glorifies copy. It contradicts the concepts established by

modernism, which were mainly focused on the significance of the author and the originality

of an artwork. As one of the most remarkable products of postmodernism, appropriation has

been widely discussed within the theoretical discourse of postmodernist art.

In the last decades, postmodernism has been considered an inadequate term with which to

describe current ‘contemporaneity’. In the October article from 2009, Hal Foster said: ‘The

category of ‘‘contemporary art’’ is not a new one. What is new is the sense that, in its very

heterogeneity, much present practice seems to float free of historical determination,

conceptual definition, and critical judgment. Such paradigms as ‘‘the neo-avant-garde’’ and

‘‘postmodernism’’, which once oriented some art and theory, have run into the sand’.32 Thus,

it is important to discuss and analyse this ideological and theoretical shift from

postmodernism to the current cultural and social situation and its relation to appropriation art.

30
Krauss, Rosalind, ‘The originality of the avant-garde: A postmodernist repetition’ In October, vol.18,
(Autumn 1981), pp. 47-66.
31
Duro, Paul, Theorizing Imitation in the Visual Arts: Global Contexts, ( Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2016),
p. 32.
32
Foster, Hal, ‘Questionnaire on "The Contemporary"’ In October, vol.130 (Winter, 2009), pp. 3-124.
15
Firstly, it is necessary to define postmodernism. The term was coined as a result of changes

taking place mostly in Western Europe and North America from the 1960s onwards. Those

changes were affected by a resistance to modernist idealism and utopian visions of humanity.

In terms of art, postmodernism stood in opposition to modernist theory, claiming purity of

form. It was also argued that only complete understanding of reality and art should be

constituted by an individual interpretation and experience.

In Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard comes to the conclusion that in postmodernism,

reality does not exist anymore. For him, the real has been replaced with a compilation of

artificial symbols and signs that only simulate the human experience of reality. He argues: ‘It

is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of

substituting the signs of the real for the real’.33

Baudrillard argues that people have lost their ability to differentiate between nature and

artificiality. To prove this point, he highlights three types of simulacra.34 The first one is

associated with pre-modernism, where an image was understood as an illusion of reality. This

started to change in the nineteenth century with the emergence of mass production. Similarly

to Benjamin’s concept of the loss of aura, Baudrillard argues that in modernism, the idea of

reality started to break down. The boundaries between reality and illusion began to blur.

However, there was still a chance to reach ‘the real’ hidden beneath imitations. The third and

last model of simulacra operates in postmodernism. Baudrillard argues that representation

precedes the reality. Therefore, there is no longer a line between what is real and what is a

creation. To him, the reality represented by images should be named hyperreality: ‘Images

are no longer the mirror of reality, they have invested the heart of reality and transform it into
33
Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1994), p.2.
34
Ibid.
16
hyperreality, where, from screen to screen, the only aim of the image is the image. The image

can no longer imagine the real because it is the real’.35

Following Baudrillard's reasoning, it can be argued that images of appropriation do not

represent reality as it is. By dwelling in their hyperreality (caused by being taken from other

works) they can become a starting point in the discussion of the real. It is worth emphasising

again that appropriation should not be considered just copying or borrowing. The products of

appropriation can rather be taken as illusions of realities represented in original pieces. At the

same time, art produced through appropriation can become a basis for understanding the

reality hidden behind its representation.

As mentioned above, it appears that postmodernism is becoming a historical term rather than

a characteristic of current contemporaneity. Consequently, appropriation in contemporary art

can be understood differently.

One of the biggest issues of appropriation art in postmodernism was the position of the

author. In the ‘Origins’ chapter in this dissertation, it was mentioned that postmodernism was

based on the rejection of the author’s authority. Thereafter, analysis and interpretation of an

artwork were dependent on individual sensation and one’s understanding. In the lecture

‘What is an author?’ given at the Collège de France in 1969 Michel Foucault stated: ‘The

author is the principle of thrift in the proliferation of meaning. As a result we must entirely

reverse the traditional idea of the author. The author is not an indefinite source of

significations which fill a work; the author does not precede the works; he is a certain

functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes, and chooses; in short, by

35
Ibid. p. 120.
17
which one impedes the free circulation, the free manipulation, the free composition,

decomposition and recomposition of fiction’.36 Those words can be understood as a reference

to Barthes’s statement, which stands for a transition from ‘the romantic creator’ to the

‘scriptor’, whose only role is to provide an artwork.37

Postmodern theory on authorship affirms and somehow defends appropriation in art as a

‘technique’ which reduces the author’s authority. However, how does the position of the

author stand in the ‘post’- postmodern discourse? Stephen Wright says that today ‘authorship

is facing a challenge from contributive usership. As users contribute content, knowledge,

knowhow and value, the question as to how they be acknowledged becomes pressing. With

the rise of collectively organised artsustaining environments, single-signature authorship

tends to lose its purchase’.38 According to Wright, nowadays we tend to go back to

authorship, but in its collective form, which consists of the ideas and knowledge of many

authors. It seems that contemporaneity brings together the modernist particular role of

authorship and the postmodernist rejection of it. Terry Smith describes this new post

postmodernist art as an art which ‘[emerges] from … the remnants of the cultures of

modernity and postmodernity, … an art of that which actually is in the world, of what it is to

be in the world, and of that which is to come’.39

Art has become a product of cooperation and relationships between individuals. There is no

main author, everyone plays the same role in providing the final art piece. The idea of

interaction and collaboration in art is one of the key elements of the Metamodernist

Manifesto which reads: ‘Movement shall henceforth be enabled by way of an oscillation

36
Foucault, Michel, Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Volume 2, (New York: The New Press 1998), p.
221.
37
Ibid. p. 385.
38
Wright, Stephen, Toward a Lexicon of Usership, (Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum, 2013), p. 10.
39
Smith, Terry, ‘Contemporary Art and Contemporaneity’ in Critical Inquiry, vol. 32 (Summer 2006), p. 692.
18
between positions, with diametrically opposed ideas operating like the pulsating polarities of

a colossal electric machine, propelling the world into action’.40 Moreover, Seth Abramson

explains that ‘In metamodernism, authorship is conceived of as a metaphysical gesture whose

medium is the language of reality’.41 Therefore, the notion of reality, contrarily to

modernism, can be achieved by engaging in a collaborative authorship. Consequently, works

which are created through appropriation take part in a ‘multiauthorship’. Following

postmodernist theories and the metamodernist manifesto in particular, the reuse of already

existing concepts and works of other authors contributes to understanding the real.

40
The Metamodernist Manifesto, www.metamodernism.org Accessed 20 October 2016.
41
Abramson, Seth, ‘The Metamodernist Manifesto’ in The Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com , (January
8, 2014)
19
Copyright and appropriations

Whenever people’s response is ‘‘how dare you!’’, I consider that a high compliment. First of

all, taking from other artists is not illegal in the art world, as it is in the music industry, and

second, it is a direct acknowledgment of how we work in painting. Everything you do is based

on what came before and what is happening concurrently. I don’t see history as monolithic.

I feel free to take and change whatever.42

Richmond Burton

Due to the specific methods used in appropriation art, that is, transforming already existing

products of art, it is crucial to discuss the difficulties encountered in relation to appropriation

and copyright law. As noted by William Landes, some appropriations, especially the products

of Dadaism, such as Duchampian ‘urinals’, are not affected by copyright.43 That is because

the ready- mades used as the base of those appropriations are manufactured and not copyright

protected. Therefore, an artist is not exposed to the risk of breaching copyright laws. The

situation looks different when ‘borrowed’ products are copyrighted. By taking another artist’s

work, appropriation artists have to consider that they might be accused of infringing

copyright.

42
Rubenstein, Richard, ‘Abstraction in a Changing Environment’ in Art in America, vol.82 (October 1994)
(quoting the artist Richmond Burton).
43
Landes, William, ‘Copyright, Borrowed Images, and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach’ in 9 George
Mason Law Review 1 (2000).
20
In Commentaries on the Laws of England Sir William Blackstone described copyright as a

form of property, being ‘the sole despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over

the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the

universe.’44 In other words, copyright is a property protected by law that gives rights and

provides original authors with exclusive control over their piece of work. Property could be

anything, including abstract things, that is definable and defined, and can be owned and

controlled by people.

The first known national copyright documents were published in the United Kingdom in

1710 and later on, in 1790, in the United States.45 However, Benedict Atkinson and Brian

Fitzgerald claim that the origins of copyright law can be found in the political, legal and

social doctrine of Ancient Greece and Rome, as well as in the history of property regulations

in Western Europe.46 For instance, French monarchs implemented limited printing patents

from the sixteenth century.47

One of the most important copyright historians, Lyman Ray Patterson, stated that ‘There is no

set of clearly defined principles for copyright’.48 Nonetheless, knowledge of some of the

main justifications of copyright law may be useful in the current debates about controversial

issues which branch out from the traditional norms, including appropriation art. Copyright

can be described as a product of law based on three major aspects: economics, public policy

(the cultural argument), and moral rights.49 Although, none of these aspects has a total

44
Blackstone, William, Commentaries of The Laws of England, (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Company,
1870), p. 1.
45
Patterson, Lyman Ray, Copyright in Historical Perspective, (Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), pp. 151-183.
46
Atkinson, Benedict; Fitzgerald, Brian, A Short History of Copyright: The Genie of Information, (Springer
Science & Business Media, 2014), p. 10-12.
47
Ibid.
48
Patterson, Lyman Ray, op.cit., p. 222.
49
Stokes, Simon, Art and Copyright, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012), p. 12.
21
sovereignty over the justifications of copyright law, they provide an important rhetorical

force which can be used for or against arguments on copyright infringement.

When it comes to the protection of copyright in fine art, it appears that definitions of

copyright are too narrow to be applied to certain contemporary forms of art. Daniel McClean

particularly mentions the products of conceptual art, such as monochrome paintings.50 Anne

Barron argues that copyright law is inadequate for protecting the ‘originality’ of these art

forms as they ‘involve basic components of cultural production’.51

It has been said that the issues concerning author’s rights and the protection of copyright

within contemporary art have led to the creation of a system of so-called ‘administrating

aesthetics’. In this system, it is an artist who authorises his work, not the institution.52 That is

because an object of art can no longer be classified and analysed through traditional,

recognisable material properties, but mainly through its concept and theoretical meaning.53

Appropriation art in relation to copyright law is a complex issue because, as many

appropriation artists claim, copyright law protects only visual products of artistic creativity

and not the ideas which constitute visual expressions. Lynne Greenberg argues that, with

regard to its unique status, appropriation requires a different copyright approach.54 According

to many commentators, legal cases that consider appropriation art cannot be examined

through traditional doctrines of authorship. Graeme Dinwoodie says that copyright law

50
McClean, Daniel, Dear images: art, copyright and culture, (London: Ridinghouse, 2002), p.272.
51
Barron, Anne, ‘Copyright, Art and Objecthood’ In McClean, Daniel, Dear images: art, copyright and culture,
pp. 277-311.
52
See for example: Burt, Richard, The Administration of Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and the
Public Sphere, (University of Minnesota Press, 1994).
53
Buchloh, Benjamin, ‘Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of
Institutions’ in October, Vol. 55 (Winter, 1990), pp. 105-143.
54
Greenberg, Lynne, ‘The Art of Appropriation: Puppies, Piracy and Postmodernism’ in Cardozo Arts and
Entertainment Law Journal, vol.11 (1992), p. 4.
22
should be more open to postmodern art and needs to differentiate infringement from a

‘transformative’ use of original artwork.55 ‘Transformative’ use contributes to the creation of

a new, different work of art and is not a mechanical copying of another artist’s work, but is a

thoughtful contextual and formal process.

There should also be a distinction between products of so - called ‘low’ and ‘high’ art. This

division is mainly influenced by the growth of reproductivity and the focus on cheap mass

productions. However, as mentioned in previous chapters, understanding what is ‘low’ and

what is ‘high’ culture (and art) is currently challenged. For instance, copyright law in the

United Kingdom does not distinguish between ‘high’ and ‘low’ artistic practice, which means

that the law protects a wider range of artworks and their authors.56 The copyright law then

becomes a threat to appropriation art and increases the possibility of artists facing legal

consequences.

On the other hand, copyright accepts appropriation when it is a matter of ‘fair use’, that is to

say when an artwork is the subject of commentary, criticism or parody in response to the

original piece.57 Nonetheless, sometimes artists go too far and simply steal from others, later

excusing themselves by saying that they acted within the context of appropriation. It is

therefore important to look at each legal case individually. Sherri Irvin said: ‘responsibility is

constitutive of authorship and accounts for the interpretability of artworks’, meaning that

55
Dinwoodie, Graeme, Methods and Perspectives in Intellectual Property, (Northampton: Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2013), p. 215.
56
McClean, Daniel, op. cit., p.312.
57
Ibid. p.313.
23
creators of appropriated artworks are obliged to be responsible for their art, and should be

validated as authors of their pieces as much as the authors of originals.58

58
Irvin, Sherri, ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’ in British Journal of Aesthetics, 45,
(2005), pp. 123-137.
24
Influence

In the book Art History: The key concepts, Jonathan Harris argues that along with the

emergence of appropriation art in the 1970s, the conventional notion of influence has

changed its meaning.59 It can no longer be considered as an element that retains continuity

with earlier artists or as part of tradition in art history. As an example of this change in the

meaning of influence, Harris mentions ‘Tracer’, an artwork made by Robert Rauschenberg in

1963, which shows that the artist was clearly influenced by the Old Masters’ nude motif (il.

6, 7). According to Harris, Rauschenberg’s work appears intentionally flat and devoid of any

expressive elements. To Harris, ‘Tracer’ is perceived as a ‘compendium of sources’ derived

from the past rather than a piece which can be easily attributed to its current owner.60

Harris’s statement can be discredited by, for instance, Immanuel Kant, who said: ‘The

product of a genius… is an example, not for imitation, but for emulation by another genius,

who is thereby awakened to the feeling of his own originality to exercise freedom from

coercion in his art in such a way that [the successor art] thereby itself acquires a new rule

[through] which the [precursor] talent shows itself as exemplary’.61 By taking elements from

the past and reusing them in a different context Rauschenberg released his artistic originality.

The influence of historic artworks contributed to him defining his presence as an artist. Due

to this, it is difficult to agree with Harris’s opinion about the lack of originality in

Rauschenberg’s artwork.

59
Harris, Jonathan, Art History: The key concepts (London: Routledge 2006), p.17.
60
Ibid.
61
Eldridge, Richard, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2014),
p. 118.
25
 Il. 6 Robert Rauschenberg, ‘Tracer’, 1963
Image credit: artpedia.tumblr.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Il.7 Peter Rubens, ‘The Three Graces’, 1630-1635

Image credit: www.peterpaulrubens.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

26
Artists influenced by others either borrow formal elements such as a particular style or use of

colour, or are inspired by a predecessor’s use of a particular motif or theme. Appropriation

artists ‘fit’ those elements into a new contextual environment. Harold Bloom said:

‘Successors are first threatened by the sublime energy of a predecessor genius and then in

active response to this threat are liberated to the exercise of their own creativity’.62

Michael Baxandall claims that influence is perceived as ‘a curse’ by art criticism. For him,

this is mainly because of the ‘wrong-headed grammatical prejudice’ of the word.63 Influence

creates a hierarchisation, it divides into the one who ‘takes’ (is influenced by) and the one

who ‘gives’ (is influencing).64 He presents an example of work by Cezanne and Picasso. In

Picasso’s ‘Demoiselles d’Avignon’ there are particular elements and poses which are adapted

from Cezanne. Nonetheless, to Baxandall it would be incorrect to say that Cezanne

influenced Picasso. He argues that Picasso took some references from Cezanne, re-analysed

them and transformed them into new, original pieces.65 Influence has many meanings, many

of them carrying the remains of the ‘romantic’ approach to art criticism.

In relation to appropriation art, influence can be seen as a method in appropriation practice.

For John Heartfield, Peter Kennard, Mary Beth Edelson and AK Dolven influence triggered

depictions of new ‘stories’ and became a form of political and social criticism .

62
Bloom, Harold, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry, (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1973).
63
Baxandall, Michael, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures, (New Haven: Yale
University Press 1985), p. 59.
64
Ibid. p. 60.
65
Ibid. p. 62.
27
‘The Executioner and Justice’ by John Heartfield

Il.8 ‘Never Again’ by John Heartfield, 1960

Image credit: www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

28
John Heartfield is a pioneer of appropriation art and photomontage. His well-known satirical

collages, produced mostly in the years preceding the outbreak of the Second World War,

denude the real image and intentions of Hitler’s politics.

From an early age, Heartfield was interested in anti-war political campaigns. In May 1916, as

25 years old, he attended a rally organised by a revolutionary Marxist movement, ‘The

Spartacus League’.66 During the rally, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg called on

people to express their resistance to Germany’s participation in the war. Later on, Liebknecht

and Luxemburg were arrested, imprisoned and eventually killed by German fascists.67 That

event had a significant impact on the later artistic activity of Heartfield. In the same year he

decided to change his original name, Helmut Herzfeld, to John Heartfield, as part of the

‘protest against German nationalistic fervour’ and against the anti-British sentiment.68 The

change symbolised Heartfield’s anti-nationalist position and demonstrated his political

alliance with Great Britain.

Heartfield’s artworks produced during the 1920s and early 1930s were mostly representations

of resistance to the popularity of Nazism. Shortly after becoming a member of the Berlin

Dadaists, Heartfield created a new technique of political photomontage. Following his

successful invention, hundreds of his artworks started to appear in popular magazines, such

as the socialist Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung (AIZ), amongst others.

66
Selz, Peter, ‘John Heartfield’s ‘’Photomontages’’ in The Massachusetts Review, vol.4, no.2 (Winter, 1963),
pp. 309-336.
67
Ibid.
68
Biography of the artist on the official website: www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 28th January 2017.
29
After Hitler came to power, Heartfield decided to leave Germany and settle in Prague. In

December 1938 he moved to London, only three months before the Nazi occupation of

Czechoslovakia. While living in London he struggled as an artist, even though some of his

photomontages were translated into English and published in some British magazines.69 After

the war he moved back to East Berlin. Suffering from poor health and suspected of

collaboration with Britain he had to abandon his artistic practice forever. He died in 1968 in

East Berlin, German Democratic Republic.70

Heartfield’s artistic practice involved appropriating well-known images and symbols, for

instance the famous dove stabbed by a bayonet (il.8), which has become an iconic image and

is still widely recognised. One of his favourite techniques was cutting out material from

popular magazines and newspapers and placing it in another, new environment, completely

changing its appearance and final meaning. Heartfield ‘played’ with influence, mostly using

it as an element of parody. His main aim was to create a ‘hidden’ meaning which would be

revealed through a study of his elaborate ‘jigsaws’.

69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
30
Il.9 ‘The Executioner and Justice’ by John Heartfield, 1933
Image credit: www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.
31
‘The Executioner and Justice’ (il.9) created in 1933 in Prague refers to the Leipzig Trial. The

trial followed the incidents related to the arson attack on the Reichstag Building in Berlin on

27 February 1933. The outcome of the Leipzig Trial was the death sentence of Marinus van

der Lubbe, a young Dutch communist.71 The responsibility for the Reichstag fire is, however,

still the subject of ongoing debate. Many historians claim that ‘The fire was an important

political component of Hitler’s rise to power’.72 Heartfield’s work is part of the discussion

about the Nazi conspiracy. He decided to choose a recognisable symbol of justice (il.10), but

the figure appears to be partially damaged. The official symbol of justice is usually

blindfolded, but in the montage, her eyes, like the entire head, are bandaged.

According to Sionaidh Douglas Scott the bandaged eyes are an illustration of the opinion of

Hermann Göring expressed during the trial: ‘For me, justice is something bloody’. (The

words were placed by Heartfield on the montage, below the title of the work.)73 That could

explain why one eye of Heartfield’s Justice is bleeding. Moreover, the German word

‘verbunded’ means ‘to be bandaged’ but also ‘to be aligned’. Heartfield’s montage can

therefore be understood as a critique of the partiality of 1930s German justice.74 The left hand

of Lady Justice is bandaged and is folded into a sign of the goat, a well-known symbol of the

devil. It is also worth noting that the left arm is almost disconnected from Justice’s body. In

her right hand, Justice holds a sword pointed upwards. According to tradition, the symbol of

the raised sword means that the conflict has not been resolved yet and the battle is still on.75

71
Kriebel, Sabine, Revolutionary Beauty: The Radical Photomontages of John Heartfield, (University of
California Press, 2014), p.36.
72
www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 28th January 2017.
73
Scott, Sionaidh, Douglas, Law after Modernity, (London:A&C Black, 2014), p.183.
74
www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 28th January 2017.
75
Ibid.
32
Heartfield represented Justice sitting, contrary to her traditional standing posture, which

could symbolise the weak position of the justice system in Nazi Germany.

Il.10 Typical representation of Lady Justice

Image credit: https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/405464772675890063/,
Accessed 27th January 2017.

Heartfield’s photomontage is a brilliant example of influence as a technique of appropriation.

The artist ‘borrowed’ the widely recognisable image of Justice and transformed it into his

own work, which was used as a strong propaganda tool and a critique of the political system.

By its obvious appropriation, Heartfield’s piece holds a powerful message which is accessible

to and can be understood by a wide public.

33
‘Photo Op’ by Kennardphillipps

Il.11 ‘Photo Op’ by Kennardphillips, 2005

Image credit: www.kennardphillipps.com, Accessed 27 January 2017.

34
Kennardphillipps is an artistic collaboration established in 2002 between London-based

photomontage artist Peter Kennard and political artist Cat Philips. The original aim of the

collective was to provide a critical response to the military invasion of Iraq by the US and

Europe. The official manifesto reads: ‘The work is made as a critical tool that connects to

international movements for social and political change. We don’t see the work as separate to

social and political movements that are confronting established political and economic

systems. We see it as part of those movements, the visual arm of protest. We want it to be

used by people as a part of their own activism, not just as pictures on the wall to

contemplate.’76

It is not without reason that the works of Kennardphillipps are produced using the technique

of photomontage. In the interview recorded for the ‘Rear Window’ series Kennard explained

that photomontage is a useful technique of critical response to social and political events: ‘It

was a great technique for bringing things together in society that are usually separate. You

don’t usually see the political perpetrator and the victim in the same picture. In photomontage

you can crunch these things together and hopefully you can make a critique through that’.77

Probably one of the most famous works of Kennardphillipps is ‘Photo Op’ (il.11), released in

2005. The photomontage shows the British politician and former prime minister Tony Blair

taking a ‘selfie’ in front of an oil explosion which appears to be reminiscent of the bombings

happening at that time in Iraq and Afghanistan. The work is a satirical and critical

observation of Blair’s foreign policies which contributed to the destruction of those countries.

The most shocking feature of this image is the contrast between the horrifying scene taking

76
The manifesto published on: www.kennardphillipps.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.
77
Kennard, Peter, Interview by Simon Hollington, 3 June 2015. The audio version of the interview available on:
www.tariqalitv.com/portfolio/46-peter-kennard, Accessed 27th January 2017.
35
place in the background- an explosion with a thick toxic layer of black clouds- and Blair’s

facial expression which reveals his enjoyment and excitement. Frank Möller says that the

image perfectly depicts ‘Blair’s autism of power, that is to say, his insusceptibility to

anything outside his own belief system’.78

Kennardphillipps’ work is a photomontage, but instead of using the old technique of collage,

as seen in the famous works of Heartfield, the artists decided to use Photoshop.

They agreed that in digital collage ‘the images are more disparate’; they just fit smoothly into

one complete image.79 That is probably why ‘Photo Op’ still shocks so many people to the

point that they believe that the photo is authentic. The use of Photoshop results in a

‘strange and devastatingly effective quality’ which ‘really does meld into a luridly believable

scene.’80

78
Möller, Frank, ‘Celebration and Concern’ in Martin, Corinne; von Pape, Thilo (eds.), Images in Mobile
Communication: New Content, New Uses, New Perspectives, (Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media,
2011), p. 72.
79
Jones, Jonathan, ‘The Tony Blair 'selfie' Photo Op will have a place in history’ in The Guardian, (October
2013).
80
Ibid.
36
In fact, Blair did photograph himself, but the photo was taken during his election campaign in

2005 when he was meeting a group of naval cadets and children (il.12).81

Il.12 The original picture taken by Blair during his campaign

Picture credit: www.hgrbroome.wordpress.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Kennardphillips replaced the cadets with the huge explosion. Their work ‘was born out of

two years of hard work to pull down the propaganda machine’82. The image became popular

and has been shown at Tate Britain, Banksy’s ‘Santa’s Ghetto’ on Oxford Street in London

and the Imperial War Museums in London, amongst others (il.13).83

81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
www.kennardphillipps.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.
37
Il.13 ‘Photo Op’ in the window of Banksy’s ‘Santa’s Ghetto’, Oxford Street in London, 2006
Picture credit: www.newstatesman.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

According to Mona Baker and Bolette B. Blaagaard, ‘Photo Op’ is an example of ‘reverse

appropriation’, which can be explained as ‘culture jamming’, where the products of popular

culture, such as photographs, are used by activists in order ‘to critique and subvert that

culture’.84 Indeed, in ‘Photo Op’, the product of culture, which could be either a cell phone, a

selfie or Tony Blair himself, is juxtaposed with the explosion, an image of political actions.

The arrangement of these two contradictory features creates a dissonance which contributes

to a better understanding of the work’s meaning.

84
Baker, Mona and Blaagaard, Bolette B., Citizen Media and Public Spaces, (London: Routledge 2016), p. 19.

38
 ‘Some Living American Women Artists: Last supper’ by Mary Beth Edelson

Il.14 ‘Some Living American Women Artists: Last Supper’ by Mary Beth Edelson, 1972
Picture credit: www.artslant.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

39
In 1972, feminist artist Mary Beth Edelson created a poster entitled ‘Some Living American

Women Artists: Last supper’ (il.14), considered one of the most iconic feminist art pieces.

For the work, she appropriated Leonardo da Vinci’s famous ‘Last Supper’ (il.15) and

transformed the faces of Christ and the Apostles into images of American pro-feminist

twentieth century women artists.

Il.15 ‘Last Supper’ by Leonardo da Vinci, 1495–1498

Picture credit: www.wikipedia.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Edelson’s intention was to express her disagreement with women’s exclusion from religious

life and to point out the dominance of pervasive patriarchy in religious institutions. As she

said: ‘The most negative aspect of organized religion, for me, was the positioning of power

and authority in the hands of a male hierarchy that intentionally excluded women from access

to these positions’.85 However, the focal aspect of the poster appears ‘to identify and

commemorate women artists who were receiving little recognition at that time’.86

85
Aleci, Linda, ‘In a pig’s eye: the offence of some Living American Women Artist’; the essay available on:
www.marybethedelson.com/essay_pigeye.html, Accessed 27th January 2017.
86
Grendler, Paul, The European Renaissance in American Life,
(Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group 2006), p. 76.
40
Edelson’s work is an example of well thought-out appropriation art. Influenced by the art of

da Vinci, she decided to choose one of the most important subjects in Christian iconography,

that is, the ‘Last Supper’. She picked this ‘grand subject’ and transformed it into a piece

where women appear to be a ‘motive power’ of the entire scene.

‘Some Living American Women Artists’ is regarded as not only a homage to female fine

artists but, as summed up by Aemilia Lanyer, a tribute to ‘all virtuous ladies in general’, no

matter what their profession.87

Jenni Sorkin noted that the use of fresco in Edelson’s artwork was intentional.88 It is known

that one of the most distinctive features of fresco is its representation of perspective, in which

a spatial continuum projected by a picture plane leads to a central vanishing point. According

to Sorkin, ‘Edelson’s collage explores the metaphoric potential of the vanishing point as a

means of signposting women’s invisibility in Western art, as examined through the

prism/prison of modernism’.89 Edelson’s work is both a witty and an influential example of

appropriation art which touches upon important issues regarding the position of women in the

contemporary world.

87
Rupp, Susanne and Döring, Tobias, Performances of the Sacred in Late Medieval and Early Modern
England, (Amsterdam: Rodopi 2005), p. 158.
88
Sorkin, Jenni, Live Form: Women, Ceramics, and Community, (University of Chicago Press, 2016), p.146.
89
Ibid.
41
‘Puberty’ by AK Dolven

Il.16 Still from ‘Puberty’ by AK Dolven

Picture credit: www.akdolven.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

42
‘Puberty’ is a 5:29 minute-long art video recorded in 2000 by the Norwegian artist AK

Dolven. (il.16) The artwork is a video portrait of a young woman sitting on the edge of a bed

in a dark room. The girl’s face is hidden behind her loose reddish hair, and she is naked - the

only thing she is wearing is a set of headphones. The video is accompanied by rhythms of

drum ’n’ bass. The girl seems to be not really interested in or responsive to the sound of the

music. Her one, automated response is the occasional delicate ‘tapping’ of a finger on her

bare thigh. Dolven said that the painting represents a ‘self-confident teenager, wearing

nothing but headphones’.90

The title of the work as well as the posture of the girl and the shadow on the wall behind her

is clearly influenced by Edvard Munch’s ‘Puberty’ created in 1894-1895 (il.17). In a video

interview for the Tate Modern, Dolven explained that her idea was also influenced by scenes

from everyday life, which she had observed while living in London:

‘When I moved to London I saw all these young girls sitting with headsets on the tube (big

headsets were popular in the 90s) and just…[nodding to the rhythm of the music - author’s

note ] And it was just like Munch’s ‘Puberty’ girl, you know.’91

90
Sherwin, Skye, ‘Artist of the week 74: AK Dolven’ in The Guardian, (10 February 2010).
91
The audio version of the interview available on:
www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/tateshots-ak-dolven-on-edvard-munch, Accessed 27 January 2017.
43
Il. 17 ‘Puberty’ by Edvard Munch, 1894-1895
Picture credit: www.edvardmunch.org, Accessed 27th January 2017.

44
Unlike Munch’s painting, Dolven’s ‘Puberty’ girl seems to be confident in her nakedness.

What is striking is the shadow behind her, which is almost twice as big as her actual body and

somewhat dominates the girl. The teenager seems to dissociate herself from the present; she

probably wishes to be isolated through the big headphones. However, the ‘present’ is just

behind her and is more powerful than she assumes. In the video interview, Dolven explained

that she ‘wanted to confront this fear of the shadow and to show how to find balance in life

when you are young’.92 The initial painting by Munch was just a starting point, an influence

which helped Dolven to ‘narrate’ her own story.

92
www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/tateshots-ak-dolven-on-edvard-munch, Accessed 27th January 2017.
45
Imitation

For all the arts imitate human life in some of its manifestations and imitate material objects

only so far as these serve to interpret spiritual and mental processes.

Aristotle

In contrast to influence, appropriation expressed through imitation ‘borrows’ a whole product

of art from its initial author. The artworks that imitate originals have aroused many

controversies regarding the originality and creativity of artists who use imitation as their main

artistic technique. The answer to these controversies is undoubtedly a fine line between

artistic expression presented through appropriation and imitation, and infringement of

copyright.

The word ‘imitation’ has nowadays rather a pejorative resonance. In many cases, the artistic

act of imitating something is conceived simply as a lack of creativity and originality.

Therefore, it is not far-fetched to say that appropriation is a challenging and vulnerable

technique of artistic expression. Imitation has nonetheless been present in the history of art

for centuries, as claimed by Maria Loh, amongst others: ‘Imitation is an embedded practice

that can be traced in one form or another throughout the history of western art’.93 In fact, the

term ‘fine art’ is actually not a direct translation from the Greek definition. To describe art,

Greeks used phrases such as ‘imitative arts’ or ‘modes of imitation’.94

93
Loh, Maria, ‘New and improved: Repetition as originality in Italian Baroque practice and theory’ in Art
Bulletin, 86, (2004), pp. 483-9.
94
Duro, Paul, op. cit., p.16.
46
A similar idea was used by Plato in his Ion and Republic. Plato regarded tragedy, painting,

sculpture, architecture and pottery as products of ‘techne’ which are based on ‘mimesis’, or

imitation of nature. For him, all the compounds of ‘techne’ were just copies - imitations of

eternal and true ideas.95 Plato linked ‘techne’ to poetry. For him, they are both imitations

which are ‘‘at a third remove from the truth’’.96 Plato’s thoughts on imitations were certainly

negative. He argued that painters for instance, imitate material objects instead of forms. They

paint things ‘as they appear’, that is, how they look and not how they really are.97 According

to his critique, representations in fine arts are fictitious and do not resemble the real truth.

Plato’s idea of ‘mimesis’ was later developed by his successor, Aristotle. However,

Aristotle’s approach to the idea of imitation was very different. Plato believed in a world of

constants - ideas that are eternal and unchangeable. To Aristotle, on the other hand, the world

is an aspect of change and development. That is why Aristotle, contrary to Plato, compared

poetry to music as it is movement - a change through time and space. In Poetics, Aristotle

explains that poetry equals music, which promotes rhythm and harmony.98 Conversely,

Plato’s comparison of poetry to fine art speaks for his favouring of constants. For Aristotle, a

painting is a finished piece: it resembles something which happened, so it cannot reflect

reality which is a matter of change.99 Furthermore, imitation, understood by Aristotle in terms

of music, differs from the imitation used in fine art. Painters use imitation of colours, lines

and shapes, while musicians imitate harmony, language and melody.100 Aristotle's Poetics

95
See: Plato, Ion and Republic.
96
Moss, Jessica, ‘What is Imitative Poetry and Why is it Bad?’ in The Cambridge Companion to Plato’s
Republic, ed. by Giuseppe Ferrari, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 430-32.
97
Ibid.
98
See: Aristotle, Poetics.
99
Simpson, Peter, ‘Aristotle on Poetry and Imitation’ in Hermes, (3rd Qtr., 1988), pp. 279-291.
100
Ibid.
47
states that all human beings are products of imitation and moreover, it is a human need to

create ‘texts’ of art which reflect the real.

As part of the commentary on the discussion of Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories on imitation,

Michael Davis wrote: ‘Imitation always involves selecting something from the continuum of

experience, thus giving boundaries to what really has no beginning or end.’101 To Davis,

mimêsis frames a part of reality and at the same time it acknowledges that the content

captured within those frames does not represent the purity of the real. Thus every imitation,

according to him, does not stand for the representation of truth and ‘the more "real" the

imitation the more fraudulent it becomes’102

The theory of imitation by another Greek historian and philosopher, Dionysius of

Halicarnassus, was based on the thoughts of Aristotle. Dionysian ‘imitatio’ is, however, not

an analysis of the imitation of nature, as it was presented in both Plato’s and Aristotle’s

writings. ‘Imitatio’ is a literary method of adapting and, copying not from nature, but directly

from other authors. The Dionysian proposition of ‘imitatio’ was linked to pure artistic

creation, which opposed Aristotelian imitation, seen as a resemblance to nature.

In his first text, On Imitation, Dionysius talks about imitation as ‘an activity receiving an

impression of a model through inspection of it’.103 However, for him, the creation of a great

work (in this case he referred to the art of writing) is only possible through the use of

101
Davis, Michael, The Poetry of Philosophy: On Aristotle's Poetics, (South Bend, Indiana: St Augustine's P,
1999).
102
Whitmarsh, Tim, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: the politics of imitation, (Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001), p.45.
103
For information about Dionysian Imitatio see, for example: Robert, Doran, The Theory of the Sublime from
Longinus to Kant, (Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 64; Walsh, George, ‘Sublime Method: Longinus on
Language and Imitation’ in Classical Antiquity, 7, (1988), pp. 252-269.
48
imitation of various artists, not only one.104 Dionysian ‘imitatio’ was quickly adopted by

Roman orators as well as artists. The idea of imitation as a positive and desired method in the

arts functioned until the emergence of Romanticism, which rejected anything that could be

considered ‘derivative’.

In 1863, an important French art historian and architectural theorist, Quatremère de Quincy

published his essay entitled Essai sur la nature, le but et les moyens de l'imitation dans les

beaux-arts in which he discussed the meaning and purpose of imitation in the fine arts.105 He

argued: ‘To imitate in the fine arts is to produce a resemblance of a thing, but as some other

thing which becomes an image of it’.106 By this definition, de Quincy hoped to differentiate

imitation in the fine arts from other forms of imitation. According to him, to imitate is, first of

all, to carefully observe an original as an artistic benchmark, a point of origin: ‘The first step

we have to make is to examine, if we are allowed the term, the genealogy and relation of our

ideas, the causes that have given rise to them, and the characteristics that distinguish them: in

a word, to return to the origin and generation of our knowledge.’107 The purpose of imitation

is, therefore, to help to develop something new, through the study of the original.

Imitation can be distinguished from copy, as imitation consists of artistic talent, precise study

and true creativity. Imitation is a skill which is used to create something new out of the

original. On the other hand, a copy is just a mirror image of an other work. Therefore,

imitation and copy are strongly contrasted in terms of their initial intention. Imitation is a

104
Bod, Rens, A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from Antiquity to the
Present, (OUP Oxford, 2013), p. 67.
105
Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine-Chrysostome, Essai sur la nature, le but et les moyens de l'imitation dans les
beaux-arts, (Harvard University: Treuttel et Würtz, 1825).
106
Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine-Chrysostome, An Essay on the Nature, the End, and the Means of Imitation
in the Fine Arts, translated by J. C. Kent, (London: Smith, Elder and Company, 1837), p. 31.
107
Ibid.
49
process which develops both artistic tradition and intellectual reference, whereas a copy is an

automatic repetition focused only on appearance.

Probably the most accurate conclusion of the discussion on imitation in art is a commentary

by Pablo Picasso: ‘Let’s suppose that one wanted to copy ‘‘The Ladies in Waiting’’ purely

and simply. There would be a moment, if it were me who had undertaken this task, when I

would say to myself: What would happen if I moved that figure there a little to the right or

the left? Then it would no longer be the Ladies in Waiting as they appear in Velasquez’s

painting… they would be my Ladies in Waiting.’108

Artists Barbara Visser, Adam Norton and Richard Prince have used the technique of imitation

as a predominant method in their artistic practice. Interestingly, although initially their works

do not seem to be connected, after analysis, it becomes evident that they all are balanced

between the meaning of an artist as a contemporary creator and the notion of authorship in

contemporary art.

108
Duro, Paul, op.cit., p.21.
50
‘Mystic Truth (Calling Bruce)’ by Barbara Visser

Il.18 ‘Mystic Truth (Calling Bruce)’ by Barbara Visser, 2007

Picture credit: www.barbaravisser.net, Accessed 27th January 2017.

51
Barbara Visser is a Dutch conceptual artist known for her multidisciplinary art pieces created

through performance, photography, video art and collage. In her art she examines boundaries

as well as similarities between contradictory themes such as original and copy, reality and

fiction, and rational and abstract. In her art, she challenges the understanding of history and

memory and how it changes through the filters of personal and social approaches: ‘she asks

herself in what ways history and memory are shaped by ourselves and by society.’109

The piece entitled ‘Mystic Truth (Calling Bruce)’ (il.18), created in 2007, is an appropriated

page torn- out of a 1991 telephone book, featuring the telephone number of the artist, Bruce

Nauman. Visser cut out the page while she was travelling in New Mexico as an art school

graduate.110 Visser’s piece was part of the exhibition ‘Mystic Truths’ at Auckland Art Gallery

in 2007. The exhibit explored the domination of mysticism in contemporary art and the

relationship between art practice and life, noting that these notions often coincide. The

official press release of the exhibition states: ‘The artists draw upon mystic realities through

re-performing historic spiritualism, activating contemporary superstition, recreating mystic

tools and iconography and documenting belief in other worlds and speculative realities’.111

The title of the exhibition refers to Bruce Nauman’s 1967 neon sign ‘The true artist helps the

world by revealing mystic truths’. (il.19)112 The seemingly cheap and shoddy sign holds an

important personal message. Nauman’s statement is a declaration of the role of the

contemporary artist, a role which is assumed by society to be mystical, reaching far beyond

the position of an ordinary craftsman.

109
www.cultureforum.eu/person/barbara-visser/, Accessed 28th January 2017.
110
Ibid.
111
www.e-flux.com/announcements/40274/mystic-truths/, Accessed 28th January 2017.
112
Ibid.
52
 Il.19 ‘The True Artist Helps the World by Revealing Mystic Truths’ by Bruce Nauman, 1967
Picture credit: www.khanacademy.org, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Visser’s piece also touches upon the idea of mysticism. The appropriated page lists Nauman’s

telephone number. The successful and widely recognisable artist appears in the telephone

book as a mythical figure, almost unreachable in ‘real life’. To Visser, the torn-out telephone

book page ‘holds the possibility of information and connection with someone admired but

assumed to be absent and unavailable’.113 It is something palpable that can be a connector

between the mystical world of the artist and the ‘outside’ reality.

113
Press release of the exhibition ‘Mystic Truths’ 2007, available on the official website of the Auckland Art
Gallery: http://www.aucklandartgallery.com/whats-on/exhibition/mystic-truths, Accessed 28th January 2017.
53
‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ by Adam Norton

Il.20 ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ by Adam Norton, 2008-2010,

Picture credit: www.adamnorton.net, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Sydney-based British fine artist Adam Norton often creates new pieces through appropriating

objects of everyday use. In an interview, he explained why he usually decides to use this

particular technique: ‘Whenever I try to make my own images I cannot overcome the hubris

of the whole idea of making special and unique images, so I always fall back on

appropriation, where I can start with something already started to carry me forward’.114

114
Norton, Adam, Interview by Maria Gontarczuk, 3 January 2017.
54
His ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ (2008-2010) is an example of the use of appropriation as a

dominant technique. The work is a compilation of sixteen found objects and books

juxtaposed with their sixteen acrylic painted copies. (il. 20, 21) The paintings are imitations

of instructional books, organised in pairs (original and copy) and placed on five bookshelves.

The paintings are exact replicas of the books but lack any information, they are just precise

reproductions of the front covers.

Il.21 ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ by Adam Norton,

Picture credit: www.adamnorton.net, Accessed 27th January 2017.

55
The title of the artwork corresponds to its theme, which is a study of different approaches to

the definitions of ‘book’ and ‘painting’ as well as ‘copy’ and ‘original’. The painted copy

only superficially looks like a book, as it is just its imitation. On the other hand, some of the

books are basic user manuals; therefore it would be an overstatement to call them ‘real’

publications. The original books and their copies are arranged at a slight distance from each

other, which creates confusion as to what is prototype and what is imitation. The viewer’s

perception is tricked, as at first glance he perceives both the copies and originals equally and

cannot see what is ‘truth’ and what is ‘fiction’. To see the differences between the pieces, a

deeper analysis is necessary.

‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ responds to the psychology of illusion and evaluates the notion

of truth. It is also an honest approach to the problem of imitation. Norton says: ‘I was struck

by how the copies did not have to be exact, because from a little distance the ‘‘real’’ books

were no more authentic as artworks than the copies. I realised I was creating a collection of

pairs. The real books were sometimes mistaken for the paintings and the paintings were

mistaken for the books’.115

Some of the displayed books in ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’ are out of date, so the

instructions they contain are no longer applicable. It can be argued, then, that the books are

no longer valid in terms of their notion of truth. Following that, the paintings are

unchangeable; they exist beyond time. Through paintings, a viewer can explore the truth and

authenticity of books from a certain period of their history. As Norton adds: ‘I think I like the

confusion created by the various layers of meaning. I think I was deliberately trying to test

115
Norton, Adam, Interview by Maria Gontarczuk, 3 January 2017.
56
the different meanings and set them up equally for the audience to judge their relative

merits.116

116
Ibid.
57
‘New Portraits’ by Richard Prince

Il.21 ‘Untitled’ by Richard Prince, 2015

Picture credit: www.gagosian.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

58
‘Imagine getting a text that reads, “I just saw your portrait at Gagosian Gallery!” As a young

artist, this is your long-awaited dream. But you then find out that your photograph, which you

took and posted to your personal Instagram account, is being sold for thousands of dollars—

and you will not receive a dime.’117

That is exactly what Richard Prince did in 2014 at the Gagosian Gallery in New York and a

year later in London. The exhibition ‘New Portraits’ (il.21, 22) showed a collection of

appropriated Instagram photographs from random social media users. Prince took screenshots

of the pictures after adding his own commentary to the ‘comment’ section below them, and

printed them as large-scale canvases. Each of the pieces cost around one hundred thousand

US dollars. Before the opening of the exhibition, Prince did not consult the authors of the

photographs about his appropriations.

Prince’s controversial art piece provoked widespread discussion on whether ‘New Portraits’

can be considered art and whether the appropriation he used remains within the frame of

artistic expression or is rather an example of copyright violation. On his blog, Prince

explained his idea of appropriating ‘online images’. He states: ‘This past spring, and half the

summer, the iPhone became my studio. I signed up for Instagram. I pushed things aside. I

made room. It was easy. I ignored Tumblr, and Facebook had never interested me. But

Instagram…’118

117
Schuler, Anna, ‘Note: Insta-appropriation: finding boundaries for the second circuit’s fair use doctrine after
Campbell’ in Fordham Law Review, 367, (October 2016).
118
Parkinson, Hannah Jane, op. cit.
59
 Il.22 ‘New Portraits’ by Richard Prince, installation view, 2015
Picture credit: www.gagosian.com, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Similarly to Visser or Norton mentioned above, Prince is also interested in the notion of

contemporary art as well as in the polemics on the position of the artist as a distanced and

quite ‘unreal’ figure. David Rimanelli claims that the appropriated Instagram pictures are

balanced between the notions of truth and fiction. He says: ‘in one work we see a closely

cropped representation of who we’re led to believe is Laurie Simmons, freckled and quite

young. Though if indeed it is, is it really Simmons herself from the past? Or is it instead an

image made as part of her artistic practice?’ 119

119
Rimanelli, David, ‘All 47 likes are mine. David Rimanelli on Richard Prince at Gagosian Gallery, New
York.’ in Texte Zur Kunst, 96, (December 2014).
60
Although ‘New Portraits’ remains the subject of ongoing critique, surprisingly, in terms of

the legacy of the artwork, it appears to follow the rules of ‘fair use’. This is due to the

changes that Prince made onto the copies - his comments appearing underneath the pictures.

Another defence of his piece is the fact that he transformed ‘the environment’ of the

photographs, shifting it from social media into a gallery space. Therefore, the context within

which the canvases are situated is different from the one they were taken from.

61
Conclusion

The meaning lies in appropriation

Søren Kierkegaard

It is evident that appropriation as one of the most popular techniques of creating art, holds a

strong position within modern and contemporary discourse. Structured on initial formal

representations or contextual frames of original artworks, appropriation creates a discussion

about the notion of originality in art and artistic authorship. Through their art, appropriation

artists challenge the idea of an artwork being the creation of only one artist.

Following the theories of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, appropriation artists are

transforming the interpretation of authorship so that is no longer ‘tyrannical’, and instead

provides a wider platform for collective creation. Originally evolving from postmodernist

theory and considered as a major aspect of the recently created metamodernism, mutual

authorship is part of the language of appropriation. Indeed, appropriation is nothing else but

the idea of, in a sense, collaborative creation where an original piece is important inasmuch

as it is appropriated. Moreover, thanks to appropriation, the meaning of originality as a

predominant feature of art has also changed and started to be considered a matter of personal

interpretation.

In terms of legal discourse and especially of copyright, artistic appropriation holds a

significant position. It appears that there is no clear definition of infringement in

62
appropriation art; judgements over issues of a potential breach of copyright seem to be made

rather on the basis of the so-called ‘good taste’ instead of consideration of specific precepts.

Appropriation in the fine arts takes many forms which can be classified as products of either

imitation which allows artists to appropriate an entire original object, or influence, which

results in artists appropriating only some parts of different artworks or certain themes.

Artists decide to use appropriation for various reasons. Some of them, like John Heartfield or

Peter Kennard use it as a political propaganda tool. Through the appropriation of widely

known symbols and materials from popular culture their artworks reach a wider public and

are understood by a bigger group of people. Mary Beth Edelson has used appropriation to

confront the patriarchal system which excludes women, from the arts sector as well as from

other fields. Her controversial appropriation carries a strong message which has an impact on

society by undermining an appointed order of male dominance.

Through appropriation, some artists express their memories and personal observations. An

example of this is AK Dolven, whose piece is a manifestation of her admiration for Edvard

Munch’s art, but is also a reminder of her stay in London. Some artists, like Richard Prince

for instance, expand the limits of appropriation. Almost all of his works, and especially his

latest exhibition at the Gagosian, balance on the edge of artistic imitation and copyright

infringement, with the latter predominating.

Due to all the different ways that appropriation is used, it is difficult to unequivocally

contextualise appropriation in the fine arts. On top of that, it would not be an exaggeration to

say that art history changes and develops but also holds onto remains of the past, often

recontextualising these remains. That is to say, appropriation is in fact a constituent of art.

63
Bibliography

Books

Aristotle, Poetics.

Atkinson, Benedict; Fitzgerald, Brian, A Short History of Copyright: The Genie of

Information (Springer Science & Business Media, 2014).

Baker, Mona and Blaagaard, Bolette B., Citizen Media and Public Spaces (London:
Routledge 2016).

Barron, Anne, ‘Copyright, Art and Objecthood’ In McClean, Daniel, Dear images: art,
copyright and culture (London: Ridinghouse, 2002).

Barthes, Roland, ‘The Death of the Author’ In Art and Interpretation: An Anthology of
Readings in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art. edited by Eric Dayton (Peterborough:
Broadview 1998).

Baudrillard, Jean, Simulacra and Simulation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
1994).

Baxandall, Michael, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures ( New

Haven: Yale University Press 1985).

Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (London: Penguin
2008).

Blackstone, William, Commentaries of The Laws of England (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott &
Company, 1870).

Bloom, Harold, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University
Press 1973).

Bod, Rens, A New History of the Humanities: The Search for Principles and Patterns from
Antiquity to the Present, (OUP Oxford, 2013).

Burt, Richard, The Administration of Aesthetics: Censorship, Political Criticism, and the
Public Sphere (University of Minnesota Press, 1994).

Chan, Victor, Rubens to Picasso: Four Centuries of Master Drawings (Alberta: University of
Alberta. Department of Art and Design 1995).

Davis, Michael, The Poetry of Philosophy: On Aristotle's Poetics, (South Bend, Indiana: St
Augustine's P, 1999).

Dinwoodie, Graeme, Methods and Perspectives in Intellectual Property (Northampton:

Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013).
64
Duro, Paul, Theorizing Imitation in the Visual Arts: Global Contexts (Hoboken: John Wiley
& Sons, 2016).

Eldridge, Richard, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press 2014).

Evans, David, ‘Introduction: Seven Types of Appropriation’ In Appropriation: Documents of

Contemporary Art edited by David Evans (London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2009).

Foucault, Michel, Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, Volume 2 (New York: The New
Press 1998).

Foucault, Michel, ‘What is an Author?’ In The Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rainbow
(New York: Pantheon Books 1984).

Fried, Michael, ‘The structure of Beholding in A Burial at Ornans’ In Courbet’s Realism

edited by Michael Fried (Chicago: university of Chicago Press 1992).

Grendler, Paul, The European Renaissance in American Life, (Santa Barbara: Greenwood
Publishing Group, 2006).

Harris, Jonathan, Art History: The key concepts (London: Routledge 2006).

Hoad, Terry, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (London: Oxford
University Press 1993).

Krauss, Rosalind, ‘The Originality of the Avant-Garde’ In The Originality of the Avantgarde
and Other Modernist Myths edited by Rosalind Krauss (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1986).

Kriebel, Sabine, Revolutionary Beauty: The Radical Photomontages of John Heartfield,

(University of California Press, 2014).

Marter, Joan, The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Volume 1 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press 2011).

McClean, Daniel, Dear images: art, copyright and culture, (London: Ridinghouse, 2002).

McClean, Daniel, ‘Piracy and authorship in contemporary art and the artistic commonwealth’
In Copyright and Piracy: An Interdisciplinary Critique edited by Bently, Lionel; Davis,
Jennifer; Ginsburg, Jane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010).

Möller, Frank, ‘Celebration and Concern’ In Martin, Corinne and von Pape, Thilo (eds.),
Images in Mobile Communication: New Content, New Uses, New Perspectives (Berlin:
Springer Science & Business Media, 2011).

Moss, Jessica, ‘What is Imitative Poetry and Why is it Bad?’ In The Cambridge Companion
to Plato’s Republic, edited by Giuseppe Ferrari, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007).

65
Nelson, Robert, ‘Appropriation’ In Critical Terms for Art History. Second Edition, edited by
Robert Nelson, Richard Shiff (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1996).

Patterson, Lyman Ray, Copyright in Historical Perspective, (Vanderbilt University Press,

1968).

Plato, Ion.

Plato, Republic.

Quatremère de Quincy, Antoine-Chrysostome, An Essay on the Nature, the End, and the
Means of Imitation in the Fine Arts, translated by J. C. Kent, (London: Smith, Elder and
Company, 1837).

Robert, Doran, The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant, (Cambridge University
Press, 2015).

Rupp, Susanne and Döring, Tobias, Performances of the Sacred in Late Medieval and Early
Modern England (Amsterdam: Rodopi 2005).

Scott, Sionaidh, Douglas, Law after Modernity (London:A&C Black, 2014).

Sorkin, Jenni, Live Form: Women, Ceramics, and Community, (University of Chicago Press,
2016).

Stokes, Simon, Art and Copyright (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).

Welchman, John, Art After Appropriation. Essays on Art in the 1990s (San Diego: University
of California 2001).

Whitmarsh, Tim, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: the politics of imitation, (Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

Wright, Stephen, Toward a Lexicon of Usership (Eindhoven : Van Abbemuseum, 2013).

Articles

Buchloh, Benjamin, ‘Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the
Critique of Institutions’ In October, Vol. 55 (Winter, 1990).

Foster, Hal, ‘Questionnaire on "The Contemporary"’ In October, Vol. 130 (Winter, 2009).

Foster, Hal, ‘Signs taken for wonders’ In Art in America, vol. 74, No. 6 (July 1986).

Greenberg, Lynne, ‘The Art of Appropriation: Puppies, Piracy and Postmodernism’ In

Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 11 (1992).

Irvin, Sherri, ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’ In British Journal of

Aesthetics, 45, (2005).

66
Jones, Jonathan, ‘The Tony Blair 'selfie' Photo Op will have a place in history’ In The
Guardian, (October 2013).

Kinney, Dale, ‘Instances of Appropriation in Late Roman and Early Christian Art’ In Essays
in Medieval Studies, Vol. 28 (2012).

Krauss, Rosalind; Michelson, Annette, ‘About October’ In October, Vol.1, (Spring 1976).

Krauss, Rosalind, ‘The originality of the avant-garde: A postmodernist repetition’ In October,

Vol. 18, (Autumn 1981).

Landes, William, ‘Copyright, Borrowed Images, and Appropriation Art: An Economic

Approach’ In 9 George Mason Law Review 1 (2000).

Loh, Maria, ‘New and improved: Repetition as originality in Italian Baroque practice and
theory’ In Art Bulletin, 86, (2004).

Richter, Jean Paul, ‘Early Christian Art in the Roman Catacombs’ In The Burlington
Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 6, No. 22 (January 1905).

Rimanelli, David, ‘All 47 likes are mine. David Rimanelli on Richard Prince at Gagosian
Gallery, New York.’ In Texte Zur Kunst, 96, (December 2014).

Rowe, Hayley, ‘Appropriation in Contemporary Art’ In Inquires Journal, Vol.3, No.6 (2011).

Rubenstein, Richard, ‘Abstraction in a Changing Environment’ In Art in America, Vol. 82

(October 1994).

Schuler, Anna, ‘Note: Insta-appropriation: finding boundaries for the second circuit’s fair use
doctrine after Campbell’ In Fordham Law Review, 367, (October 2016).

Selz, Peter, ‘John Heartfield’s ‘’Photomontages’’ In The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 4, No. 2
(Winter, 1963).

Simpson, Peter, ‘Aristotle on Poetry and Imitation’ In Hermes, (3rd Qtr., 1988).

Smith, Terry, ‘Contemporary Art and Contemporaneity’ In Critical Inquiry, Vol. 32

(Summer 2006).

Walsh, George, ‘Sublime Method: Longinus on Language and Imitation’ In Classical

Antiquity, Vol. 7 (1988).

Online Press Articles

Abramson, Seth, ‘The Metamodernist Manifesto’ In The Huffington Post,

www.huffingtonpost.com (January 8, 2014).

Halperin, Julia, ‘Instagram model and makeup artist sues Richard Prince over copyright
infringement’, In The Art Newspaper, www.theartnewspaper.com, (August 26, 2016).
67
Parkinson, Hannah Jane, ‘Instagram, an artist and the $100,000 selfies – appropriation in the
digital age’ In The Guardian, www.theguardian.com, (July 18, 2015).

Sherwin, Skye, ‘Artist of the week 74: AK Dolven’ In The Guardian, www.theguardian.com,
(10 February 2010).

‘The Art of Copying: Ten Masters of Appropriation’, www.artsy.net, (February 11, 2014).

Interviews

Dolven, AK, Interview by Tate Shots, 28 September 2012.

The audio version of the interview available on:
www.tate.org.uk/contextcomment/video/tateshots-ak-dolven-on-edvard-munch,
Accessed 27 January 2017.

Kennard, Peter, Interview by Simon Hollington, 3 June 2015.

The audio version of the interview available on:
http://tariqalitv.com/portfolio/46-peter-kennard/,
Accessed 27th January 2017.

Norton, Adam, Interview by Maria Gontarczuk, 3 January 2017.

Websites

Definition of ‘influence’
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/influence, Accessed 5 October 2016.

Definition of ‘imitation’
en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/imitation, Accessed 5 October 2016.

The Metamodernist Manifesto

www.metamodernism.org, Accessed 20 October 2016.

Biography of John Heartfield

www.johnheartfield.com, Accessed 28th January 2017.

The Kennardphillips Manifesto

www.kennardphillipps.com/, Accessed 27th January 2017.

Aleci, Linda, ‘In a pig’s eye: the offence of some Living American Women Artist’
www.marybethedelson.com/essay_pigeye.html, Accessed 27th Januray 2017.

Notes about Barbara Visser

www.cultureforum.eu/person/barbara-visser/, Accessed 28th January 2017.

Information about the ‘Mystic Truths’ exhibition

68
www.e-flux.com/announcements/40274/mystic-truths/, Accessed 28th January 2017.

Press release of the ‘Mystic Truths’ exhibition, 2007

www.aucklandartgallery.com/whats-on/exhibition/mystic-truths, Accessed 28th January
2017.

69
List of Illustrations

1. Ashley Salazar, self portrait, 2016.; Richard Prince, Appropriated Salazar’s self
portrait, 2016.
2. Giorgione, ‘Venus’, 1510.
3. Titian, ‘Venus of Urbino’, 1538.
4. Edouard Manet, ‘Olympia’, 1863.
5. Meret Oppenheim, ‘Object’, 1936.
6. Robert Rauschenberg, ‘Tracer’, 1963.
7. Peter Rubens, ‘The Three Graces’, 1630-1635.
8. John Heartfield, ‘Never Again’, 1960.
9. John Heartfield, ‘The Executioner and Justice’, 1933.
10. Typical representation of Lady Justice.
11. Kennardphillips, ‘Photo Op’, 2005.
12. Picture taken by Tony Blair during his campaign, 2005.
13. Photograph of the ‘Santa’s Ghetto’ exhibition curated by Banksy, 2006.
14. Mary Beth Edelson, ‘Some Living Women Artists/ Last Supper’, 1972.
15. Leonardo da Vinci, ‘Last supper’, 1495-1498.
16. Still from the art video ‘Puberty’ by AK Dolven, 2000.
17. Edvard Munch, ‘Puberty’, 1894-1895.
18. Barbara Visser, ‘Calling Bruce’, 2007.
19. Bruce Nauman, ‘The Artist Helps the World by Revealing Mystic Truths’, 1967.
20. Adam Norton, ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’, 2008-2010.
21. Adam Norton, ‘Library of Truth and Fiction’, 2008-2010.
22. Richard Prince, ‘Untitled’, 2015.
23. View of the ‘New Portraits’ installation by Richard Prince, 2015.

70