I found a good art definition of the word appropriation on the site http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary_a/a/a_appropriation.htm (no date)
"(noun) - To appropriate is to take possession of something. Appropriation artists deliberately copy images to take possession of them in their art. They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all. Appropriation artists want the viewer to recognize the images they copy, and they hope that the viewer will bring all of his/her original associations with the image to the artist's new context, be it a painting, a sculpture, a collage, a combine or an entire installation."
now taking into account this definition you are able to grasp the concept more and see examples of appropriation art in many famous artist such as
Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Can series (1961)
Warhol, A. (1964) Campbells Soup Can [ Silkscreen on canvas] [online]. Available at: http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mplog/art.htm (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Salvador Dalí Lobster Telephone (1936)
Dali, S. (1936) Lobster Telephone, Tate collection [online] Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=2988&tabview=image(Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Jake & Dinos Chapman, Insult to Injury etchings 2003.
Based on Goya’s “Los Desastres de la Guerra” (1810–1820)
Gerber, S. (2005) Explaining Christians to Dinosaurs_12 [online]. Available at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wurzeltod/6122247/in/photostream/ (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Jake & Dinos Chapman, Insult to Injury etchings 2003.
Based on Goya’s “Los Desastres de la Guerra” (1810–1820)
Gerber, S. (2005) Explaining Christians to Dinosaurs_13 [online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wurzeltod/6122266/ (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Jake & Dinos Chapman, Insult to Injury etchings 2003.
Based on Goya’s “Los Desastres de la Guerra” (1810–1820)
Gerber, S. (2005) Explaining Christians to Dinosaurs_11 [online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wurzeltod/6122234/in/photostream/ (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
I can see Andy Warhol soup cans are appropriation art because the way I see it is that there must have been a designer who came up with the soup can design and Andy Warhol has taken the designers work and made it into art. thus incorporate that artist's work into his own has made his work appropriated.
The Chapman brothers, whose "art works" are shown above, are in my opinion a strong example of appropriation art. They haven't used a copy of the an artist work or made a reproduction of it but have actually used the original etching prints of Goya's and defaced them by drawing silly faces over the original images. They aimed to offend people outrage the art world and they have done. These artworks have caused controversy and have been looked down on by viewers.
a quote that illustrates this well is from Stuart Jeffie, who wrote an internet article for the guardian called 'How the Chapman Brothers became the brothers grim'. in this article he mentions that previous interviewers such as Lynn Barber and Johann Hari have in his words Jeffie, S. (2010) '... denounced the Chapmans brothers as pretentious, anti-Enlightenment artists who wallow in our irrationality and baseness, who merely add shit to shit.'
I can understand this point of view of taking someone work and changing it in someway does seem on the verge of plagiarism and raises questions on whether it does make the art work better in anyway? is it considered a new piece of artwork? is it good or is it actually like putting shit on great art work? These sort questions are open to the viewer I guess. Although that last question reminds me of a story my formal art teacher John Fox told me when I was at college. He mentioned when he took a previous class to a gallery. one of the students had caused the alarms to trigger because he was actually poking a painting with a pen. Now if he had damage the panting with his pen or got any ink on the painting it would be considered a huge problem. This sort of logic can be applied to the the people who dislike what the Chapman brothers have done. They basically doodled over a someones work.
I like the illustrations the Chapman brother have made over Goya's itching prints but I also like Goya's original works. I wouldn't say that the Chapman have improved upon Goyas etching by doodling over it nor would I say they have ruined it to a degree. You could ask why they couldn't have use copies of the originals but the answer would be they wanted to shock people in the art world. Using copies of the etchings wouldn't raise as much attention as they have.
In my conclusion appropriation artists add something unique to the work they make, as well as the concepts behind them. They challenge the idea of ownership of art, step on the edge of plagiarism and raise questions of about the art "they create". Whether what they do is good or not rest in the opinion of the viewer.
sources :
Gersh-Nesic, B. Art History About. Available at: http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary_a/a/a_appropriation.htm (no date) ( Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Gersh-Nesic, B. Art History About. Available at: http://arthistory.about.com/od/glossary_a/a/a_appropriation.htm (no date) ( Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Jeffries, S. (2010) Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/aug/03/jake-dinos-chapman-childrens-art ( Accessed: 11 February 2011)
http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=23 (no date) (Accessed :11 February 2011).
Jones, J. (2003) Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2003/mar/31/artsfeatures.turnerprize2003 ( Accessed: 11 February 2011).
Gerber, S. (2005) Explaining Christians to Dinosaurs_11 [online]. Available at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wurzeltod/6122234/in/photostream/ (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
Gerber, S. (2005) Explaining Christians to Dinosaurs_12 [online]. Available at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wurzeltod/6122247/in/photostream/ (Accessed: 11 February 2011)
