Genevieve(Viva) Goran: 2008

Both of the images above are appropriated images. They are pieces created by Andy Warhol. I chose them because he in particular got into some serious legal trouble because of copyrights. There were many lawsuits filed against him because of the images that he improvised for his art.

After reading "the ecstasy of influence" I formed my own opinions on appropriation of images, and, to a certain extent, they are somewhat conflicting.

On the one hand, part of me is 100% in favor of creativity. So, for example, if I uploaded a photograph that I took of a piece of art or even of something unrelated to art, and another artist ended up using it in a piece, my first reaction would be to be very flattered, especially if that artist was already accomplished in their profession. The idea of that artist(whether well-known or obscure) having inspired by my art so much that the want to include it in a piece of their own is very appealing to me, as I'm sure it is to many. I think there is something to be said for the ability to share work. A good example of this is "JONES SODA." This company has consumers of their products take photographs and send them into the company. If they approve of the photographs, they put pictures of them on their bottles. Thus, they are managing to differentiate from other companies, and the artist gets the satisfaction of knowing that their photograph was chosen and is now being displayed on a product where millions will be able to see it.

On the other hand, there is something unsettling about putting time and effort into a work, and then seeing someone else incorporate it into their piece without recognition. It feels very sneaky to me. I personally think, that as long as credit is given to the person whose work is being borrowed, the act of borrowing itself is alright. For example, the website "corbis.com" is a site where one can buy pictures taken by professionals to be used in adds and projects. The photographs have the corbis logo on them so that none can be stolen or hot-linked. Another example is livejournal.com. I have a livejournal account and people tend to upload icons often. They are free for the taking, as long as you give credit to the user you took them from. If credit is not given, and the maker of a particular icon sees this, they get very upset. Even though it is something small, it still holds value, and it is still hurtful to know that your work is being taken advantage of.

This brings up another aspect of appropriation: is alright to take some else's image and use it in your own work, if your work isn't displayed to the public? For example: using someones photograph in a collage for a school assignment. In my opinion, I belive it is. No harm is being done, and as long as the image doesn't leak somehow, I think it is innocent enough.

The article also brings up an interesting point:

"If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; without the Rankin/Bass and Charlie Brown Christmas specials, there would be no South Park; and without The Flintstones—more or less The Honeymooners in cartoon loincloths—The Simpsons would cease to exist. If those don't strike you as essential losses, then consider the remarkable series of “plagiarisms” that links Ovid's “Pyramus and Thisbe” with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Leonard Bernstein's West Side Story, or Shakespeare's description of Cleopatra, copied nearly verbatim from Plutarch's life of Mark Antony and also later nicked by T. S. Eliot for The Waste Land. If these are examples of plagiarism, then we want more plagiarism."

This paragraph stuck me as very honest, and after I read it , I thought about the validity that it held. People tend to give tremendous leeway to plagerism if it is funny and entertaining, or if the act is done by a large, well-known company( FOX, for example).

It is interesting to think about appropriation in terms of morals, and "the ecstasy of influence", by Jonathan Lenthem definitely provides food for thought on the topic.