Art Appropriation Then and Now

            As I’ve sat through my Western Art History lectures this semester I have noticed something about society’s view of art as time has gone by: plagiarism is a new concept that continues to become more and more popular in the world of the visual arts.  In the Middle Ages art was made for religious purposes and it all looked the same; no one stood out so it did not matter if people copied each other’s styles.  The Renaissance is based off of the idea of copying the Greeks and Romans so much so to the point that if artists incorporated Greco-Roman images into their work it was considered better than those that did not.  In the Baroque and Rococo periods artists took what was being done in the Renaissance and simply made it more detailed, dramatic, and elaborate.  Artists in the neoclassic period actually gained recognition and respect for using techniques and compositional aspects from older artwork.  Even during the realist movement when contemporary life was the most prominent subject matter artists like Manet gained credit as an artist for clearly using compositions from older artists’ works.  However today, this is not the case.

            When someone uses another’s person’s artwork they are usually met with opposition.  Artists who use parts of older works do not get credit for the work because people who recognize famous artwork but are uneducated in the arts (most people today) say things like “Well he stole that from Titian and just put it in a different setting.”  Artists who use aspects from famous old artworks have a conceptual need for people to recognize the original work, such as Faith Ringgold who made a copy of Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d’Avignon and added a black woman into the scene of white nudes.  Doing this made a statement about racism by showing people they were racist when they looked at the painting when they thought the black woman looked out of place.  But some people claim it is not all her work because she stole most of the image from Picasso’s original work.

            An even more controversial form of using others’ art in your own is when someone takes something from an artwork made recently.  When Raphael and Michelangelo were working on different pieces at Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome Raphael incorporated a character in School of Athens with the same large build as Michelangelo’s work that was supposed to represent Michelangelo.  Taking a style or compositional idea from Michelangelo back then was seen as flattering to the artist, but not today.  Because the artist who made the original work is still alive or because the original work is commercially used, artists face more problems when using others’ work.  Today artists sue each other, like when a photographer sued Jeff Koons, a contemporary artist, because Koons made a sculpture based off of a picture the photographer had taken.

            Imitation is supposed to be a form of flattery however artists working today are touchy and spoiled.  They are offended that other artists want to use their work and incorporate into their own so they sue the artists to get more money for coming up with the image first.  It should not be this way.  A long time ago artists were valued because they had the talent to create something new and recognizable on a flat surface or from some metal or stone, but art is not only about technical skill and compositional creativity.  There is a third part to art making that many people overlook: the conceptual meaning behind the artwork.  People who do not take the time to interpret this meaning do not respect artists who use others’ work to get a meaning across.  An example of this artwork would be Manet’s Olympia, which obviously imitates Titian’s “Venus of Urbino”.  Titian’s piece celebrated the classical style of Greek and Roman ideas about human beauty while Manet’s piece showed the society at the time that their actions involving prostitutes was not as glamorous as they imagined it to be.  If both those artists were working today, Manet would probably lose a lawsuit.

            As artists we should not be so touchy about if our work is being used in a new and innovative way.  Whether we enjoy the appropriated piece made from our own or not is not important: respecting another artist’s conceptual art ideas is.  As long as a new concept clearly comes through the appropriated artwork, artists and courts should allow this style of art to continue without opposition.