Sampling, appropriating, borrowing, stealing. Whatever you want to call it, artists have been copying since time immemorial. We look into the history of the practice, and share our theories of why it is done, and what it can offer us. To support our channel, or at least consider it: http://www.patreon.com/artassignment.
Written by Joanna Fiduccia
Thanks to our Grandmaster of the Arts Indianapolis Homes Realty, and all of our patrons, especially Patrick Hanna and Constance Urist.
Subscribe for new episodes of The Art Assignment every other Thursday!
—
Follow us elsewhere for the full Art Assignment experience:
Website: http://www.theartassignment.com
Instagram: http://instagram.com/theartassignment/
Extra Credit Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/artassignmentextracredit/
tumblr: http://theartassignment.tumblr.com/
All responses tumblr: http://all.theartassignment.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/artassignment
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/theartassignment
and maybe Reddit?: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheArtAssignment
The Art Assignment
Source
My FAVORITE new page. Wonderful historical analysis. Love it.
Walter Benjamin should've been mentioned imo
I disagree with about 30-40% of what was said in this video, and you never came back to the conclude the point on the two identical photos at the start. Still food for thought I guess.
I am thinking about https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/ and Appropriation Art and my mind is just whirling rn
Nope, this video was a travesty. Everybody loves Roy Lichtenstein but few know who Russ Heath even was. He was the artist whose comics Liechtenstein stole from to make some of his most famous paintings. I get the "theoretical" case for copying, but what about the ethical case? Commercial artists, including comic book artists like Russ Heath, often struggled to make ends meet and (like Heath last August) died in obscurity, while a flat, soulless version of their work that somebody else got paid MILLIONS for hangs in the Tate Modern. The art that Pop Art appropriated may have been created with the intent of being mass produced, but the art itself is a unique object that came from some other artists' minds and labor, and respect should be paid to them.
How about "The Case for Commercial Art", or "The Case for Sequential Art (Comics)"?
I will thank you if you can share your sources. Great work by the way.
i don't know if it's just me but so much was being mention, so many images appearing and like no time to digest what the last sentence was talking about
3:47 Dara Birnbaum, creator of the first YouTubePoop
I hope someone appropriates this video.
That says it all ! A painter gets $10 for a picture, 20 years later it is resold for $1M .
A person writes a song and expects the world to pay to listen for ever ?
Not in my way of reasoning.
this video was flagged for copyright infringement. all the money will now go to MGM
Saying that works of ancient art are somehow oppressive of the people who created because they are unsigned or the artists are unknown is disingenuous–they were created in a time and a culture when artists did not sign their works, because their works were not objects of self-aggrandizement or individual expression, but were in most cases religious or ritual objects, and signing them would have been seen as blasphemous and an act of hubris.
We don't know those artists because they didn't WANT to be known, NOT because of some vast "Western Supremacy Conspiracy"…
I would have loved more discussion on the controversy surrounding these instances of copying eg. Prince's ig exhibition.
ps. There is a missing caption on one of your images. It is a gallery photo from the Gottfried Lindauer exhibition "The Māori Portaits" held at Auckland Art Gallery – Toi o Tamaki in 2016/17.
The extremely relevant backtrack in this video really got me….
I've never seen a painter more puzzling than Manet.
Sherrie Levine is a no-talent hack. She came up with a cheap gimmick and make a career out of it
All art is fanart. Gotcha.
However, it's a different subject when someone claims art they did not create as their own (AKA Sherrie Levine). That's just stealing. If you don't put the time and effort into copying something, then you don't deserve to claim it as your own interpretation of it. Simple as that.
Standing on the shoulders of those who came before. It's how knowledge is created.
Good artists copy, great artists led zeppelin.
manet's crossover episode
I don’t copy. As a result when my art is viewed, it cannot be associated with anything ever seen before. It is original.
Isn’t this video protecting plagiarism? When the line becomes blurry between originality and plagiarism, we shall recognize that we are in a cultural low tide. TAA feeds well for the mass. Very disappointing.