Why do artists appropriate

Generally, criticism or review will involve some form of judgment on the Source Work in question, or use of the Source Work to make a judgment on some other material. The Copyright Act lists a number of factors to be considered in determining whether a particular use for this purpose is 'fair', including the possibility of obtaining the Source Work within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price and the effect of the dealing upon the potential market for the Source Work.

The use of the Source Work for the purposes of parody or satire will not infringe copyright so long as that use is 'fair'. This is one of the newer defences in the Copyright Act and so it unclear how it will be applied by the courts. However, a parody would usually be of the underlying Source Work while a satire would usually use the Source Work to draw attention to a certain issue often through sarcasm or irony. Given the uncertainty surrounding these defences, and the lack of consideration given to the issue of 'appropriation art' by Australian courts, this is an area to consider but not necessarily rely upon if you are using a substantial part, or the whole of, a Source Work.

If you are using a substantial part of a copyrighted Source Work and no fair dealing defences apply, it may be necessary to consider:. If copyright subsists in the Source Work, the author of the Source Work, or their estate, will have the following moral rights in the Source Work:. If your planned use of a Source Work may infringe moral rights, you should either obtain the author's consent or ensure your actions in relation to the Source Work are reasonable in the circumstances other than false attribution which cannot be 'reasonable'.

It is also possible that a use of the Source Work which does not infringe copyright may still infringe the author's moral rights in the Source Works.

For this reason it is important to consider both factors before proceeding with the Resulting Work. Artists, their agents and galleries that exhibit works should also consider the implications of consumer protection laws which prohibit persons, businesses and corporations, in trade or commerce, from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct, or conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive.

The Courts have very recently indicated that they are willing to apply consumer protection laws to the sale of artworks. In June , Justice Vickery in Blackman v Gant held that the owner of a gallery had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by effectively authenticating, and selling, works falsely attributed to Charles Blackman and Robert Dickerson see Artists Beware of Dealers Selling Fakes.

Although most appropriation art is unlikely to amount to a misrepresentation in the way an art forgery or false attribution is likely to, that the basic process behind appropriation art involves the use of parts of an existing Source Work creates a risk that the exhibition or offering for sale of a Resulting Work will mislead or deceive consumers into believing that:.

Misleading and deceptive conduct, or conduct likely to mislead or deceive, can form the basis of an application to the Court for, among other things, an injunction preventing the exhibition or sale of a Resulting Work, damages for any loss resulting from a person's reliance on the misleading conduct, or delivery up for destruction of the Resulting Works.

Importantly, claims of misleading and deceptive conduct as well as infringement of copyright and moral rights can cause significant reputational damage to those involved.

Resulting Works may, in one sense, be considered to be new and original works simply by reason of their creation and the significant work required from the artist in adapting the Source Work to create the Resulting Work.

However, in considering whether consumers have been misled or are likely to be misled you must consider what reasonable consumers expect when purchasing the Resulting Work and, in particular, whether some consumers would reasonably expect such a work to be your wholly original creation.

To determine this, the Court will consider the class of consumers likely to be affected by the conduct in question eg the offer for sale of the Resulting Work to determine whether any of those consumers may be misled.

Although the class of consumers will include the experienced and astute, it will also include the inexperienced and gullible. So, for example, where a particular work is offered for sale to a limited audience of consumer eg an inner city gallery attended by consumers particularly savvy in matters of art , it is arguable that those consumers will understand that the Resulting Work as with most artworks may involve appropriation from previous works, and so are unlikely to be misled.

However, where the offer for sale is broader eg. Artists appropriate imagery all the time and many do not get in trouble for it. Many artists appropriate and do not get in trouble because the appropriated imagery is buried beneath modified material.

In the comic world, likely the most famous artist known for appropriating is Roy Lichtenstein. Collage Collage describes both the technique and the resulting work of art in which pieces of paper, photographs, fabric and other ….

Readymade The term readymade was first used by French artist Marcel Duchamp to describe the works of art he made from …. Surrealism A twentieth-century literary, philosophical and artistic movement that explored the workings of the mind, championing the irrational, the poetic and …. Pop art Pop art is an art movement that emerged in the s and flourished in the s in America and Britain, ….

Neo-geo Short for neo-geometric conceptualism, the term neo-geo came into use in the early s in America to describe the work …. Modernism Modernism refers to a global movement in society and culture that from the early decades of the twentieth century sought …. Pablo Picasso — Marcel Duchamp — Sherrie Levine born Levine worked first with collage, but is most known for her work with re-photography — taking photographs of well known photographic images from books and catalogues, which she then presents as her own work.

In she photographed work by photographer Walker Evans from Her work did not attempt to edit or manipulate any of these images, but simply capture them.

By bringing this work back into the conscious of the art world, she was advancing the art form that is photography by using it to increase our awareness of already existing imagery.

On a basic level, we tend to equate originality with aesthetic newness. Why should a new concept — the concept of appropriation and the utilising of existing imagery — be deemed unoriginal?

Kruger however, finds the political label often attached to her work problematic. By using images available for public consumption in a composition with a thought provoking statement, Kruger is asking us to rethink the images that we consume on a daily basis in terms of perception and how underlying messages function within this imagery.

Barbara Kruger is still creating art today, and the most current example of her work is seen in the November issue of W Magazine: The Art Issue featuring reality TV star Kim Kardashian on the cover. Combining the words of Kruger and the image of currently world famous Kardashian is a form of appropriation in itself. W Magazine is appropriating the star into an art context, by simply featuring her on the cover of their art issue.

This could be an attempt to consider another area of our consumer culture, which the cover star makes her living from — reality TV — as an art form. The idea of using appropriation to address the consumption of imagery is something that was addressed in the pivotal exhibition Pictures. In the exhibition catalogue, curator Douglas Crimp noted to growing extent to which our day-to-day experience is governed by images from the media.

The exhibition has a considerable impact on the art world — it launched a new art based on the usually unauthorised possession of the images and artefacts of others. Richard Prince is an appropriation artist who is commonly thought to have featured in the pivotal Pictures exhibition, despite having no connections with it whatsoever. Much of his work focused on the re-photography of caption less advertisements for high end products such as perfume, fashion and watches.

Here Prince has re-photographed and re-proportioned an image from an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes. Much like the work of Sherrie Levine, there is very little that the artist Richard Prince has done to alter the original work. The questions of originality and authorship continually surround Prince and his work. The discourse and attention surrounding the concept of appropriation is so extensive that we must consider it an art form.

Whilst some may consider appropriation as copying or forgery, it is clear that the controversial art form has now gained recognition worthy of a contemporary art practice.

After Sherrie Levine by Jeanne Siegel. Available at: www. Barthes, R. Dunleavy, D. Irvin, S. British Journal of Aesthetics , Vol 45, No. Sandler, I. Westview Press: Colorado. Kennedy, R. W Magazine. Schneider, A Appropriation as Practice. Art and Identity in Argentina , Palgrave Macmillan pp.