Appropriation

0

Dear Artist,

I do quite a bit of skulking around on West Coast Native reservations and in deserted villages. A variety of unique cultures formerly thrived nearby where I live. Ours is the land of totem poles. Demographics change and populations move, leaving villages in dereliction. While there is some effort to revive the art of carving, and better stuff goes to museums, for the most part the rain forest enfolds and eventually claims those remaining. These magical places hold the ghosts of former glory, pride and familial ties, as well as inter-tribal competition and warfare. The weathered poles tell of clan, myth, personal wealth and bravado. In searching these solemn faces I look for an understanding of the universal human condition.

061907_robert-genn-artworkII

“Taken by the forest” (2007)
acrylic painting 30 x 34 inches
by Robert Genn

When painting them, I’m confronted with concerns of appropriation. Totemic figures and the stories they tell belong to somebody. While the carvers may be long gone, their offspring still hold some sort of sacred title. The distinct art of this coast, and the way of making it, is owned collectively by the cultures represented–the Haida, Tsimshian, Kwakiutl, etc.

Appropriation is the legal word for using someone else’s art as part of your own. The American Copyright Act uses the term “fair dealing” for purposes of criticism, review or parody — and claims this does not infringe copyright. The word “parody” is valuable here. Parody means to ridicule by imitation. While some of us have the instinct to ridicule that which we depict, most of us simply comment. Comment is certainly artists’ territory. In my case I try to show the cycle of life and death, the impermanence of facade, the return to the natural state, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. For those who might claim personal copyright of such subject material — it’s apparently ours for the taking.

061907_robert-genn-artwork

“By the Skeena” (2007)
acrylic painting 24 x 30 inches
by Robert Genn

In Canada we have a similar understanding. Fair dealing in Canada’s Act (Section 29) says it’s not an infringement to reproduce someone else’s work for research, study, criticism, review, or even to merely report. As artists are in a broad sense “reporters,” this is wide latitude indeed. Here’s the rub: if artists are going to appropriate, they need to “add to” that which they appropriate. Irony, metaphor, condition, counterpoint, or even artistic flair can make the art of others into your own art. Looking at the situation this way, we see that better art is made as well.

 

061907_robert-genn-artworkIII

drawing on lithograph paper
by Robert Genn

Best regards,

Robert

PS: “If you absolutely have to appropriate someone else’s work, do us a favour and make it say something new.” (Lori Lukasewich)

Esoterica: Promoting cultural dialogue is in the interest of both artists and the wider public. Those who claim prior ownership may need only to be asked for permission and recognized. Others may request a fee. When the fee seems out of the ball park, the potential appropriator has the choice of dropping the cultural dialogue. Several years ago a man asked me for a thousand dollars in exchange for the privilege of painting a clan totem. The pole was on the ground and rotting out. I asked his daughter if I might do a portrait drawing of her for free, and right then and there, she agreed.

 


Donate work to museums
by Daryl Jakubec, Canada
 

I do not feel it is correct to paint the totems for profit. It is okay to donate the painting to the original carver or his clan. I am an adopted Haida, and I would not paint someone else’s art. Most people I know who paint them explain to me that they are preserving the totem. If this is the case then they should donate it to a museum. I feel this way because it is how the native carvers feel.

(RG note) Thanks, Daryl. I don’t notice a lot of my native carver friends donating their work to museums. Selling — yes, donating — infrequently.

 


Presumptuous onlookers
by Mary-Leigh Doyle, Calgary, AB, Canada
 

061907_mary-leigh-doyle-artistpic

Mary-Leigh Doyle teaching at a Swintons Art Supplies’ workshop

It has always seemed presumptuous that a mere onlooker could begin to understand what has been passed on through generations. Whether a spiritual image or political, historical or racial only those who lived it, breathed it, fathered or inherited it can truly understand it. I find myself torn as I greatly admire the cultural diversity we find around us but I struggle with my own attraction to the same and my right to attempt to represent it knowledgably. I do not condemn those who do not feel this way but I do question the validity of the message such work might relay.

 



There is 1 comment for Presumptuous onlookers by Mary-Leigh Doyle

From: Brittiny Simi — Nov 04, 2008

Just think when we get to heaven how all the unknown pieces n the puzzle will automaticly fit,and what a glorious picture of new things.

The Lord gave me a prothetic vision long ago and It was hey there will be new colors you have yet to see in heaven also my guess they will be textured I don’t think our earthly mind will comprehend this fully some day….over the rainbow.May God bless you!!!

 


Appropriation central to art making
by Robert Bissett, Naples, ID, USA
 

061907_robert-bissett-artwork

“Tucker and Babe”
oil painting by Robert Bissett

Can you show me an artist who isn’t appropriating? Only the blind create such paintings. Modern art was motivated at least in part by an attempt to avoid appropriating and be original. Seemed to work for a while, but look at it now. If one of your readers thinks he/she is not appropriating, please post your work and let’s discuss it.

 

 

 

 


Give recognition
by Jeanne Fosnot, Monterey, CA, USA
 

061907_pablo_picasso-artwork

(left) Las Meninas by Diego Velazquez in (1656)
(right) Las Meninas (after Velazquez) by Pablo Picasso (1957)

Commenting on the practice of using another’s art to make a commentary, study, parody, etc, most artists have done studies of other’s art. For example, Picasso’s many studies of Velazquez’s painting of the little princess and her family, or Van Gogh’s study of Delacroix’s Ascension from the Cross and so on. He always gave credit by calling it Homage to Delacroix or Studies of Velazquez.

061907_van-goghII-artwork

(left) Pieta by Eugene Delacroix (1850)
(right) Pieta (After Delacroix) by Van Gogh (1889)

When I was working on my Master’s degree in painting at San Jose State University, one of the Professors had been winning many national and state awards for his watercolors. One year, the artist-photographer from whom he took his material sued him and was reported to collect fifty million dollars for the plagiarism. This incident was a lesson to all the painters in the Masters and Bachelor of Arts program: if you use a photograph, give the artist-photographer credit.

 


The eternal appropriation of Venice
by Tony Lamont, NSW, Australia
 

061907_Canaletto-artwork

“View of the Ducal Palace in Venice” (1755)
oil painting 51 x 83 cm
by Canaletto (Giovanni Antonio Canal)

I have just returned from my first visit to Venice. We walked the streets for 7 days rain or shine and loved every minute of it. The city is full of artists and has been for centuries. I think every brick and stick has been painted and photographed. Does this mean we are unwittingly guilty of appropriation or copyright infringement with our art today? How much variation makes it okay? How on earth does one judge this? After all it is not what is in one’s heart; it is the view of a judge that will determine if you pay.

(RG note) Thanks, Tony. I’m not in a position to say how an Italian judge might rule, but if you keep the idea of “fair dealing” in mind, and add your own personal spin to the Venice experience, go for it.

 


Art as a springboard
by Judy Lenzin, Lausanne, Switzerland
 

061907_judy-lenzin-artwork

Crazy Quilt Miniature by Judy Lenzin

The terms of the law on copyrighting and especially the Canadian Fair Dealing Act (sect 29) are pretty vast and open to a lot of interpretation. A couple of years ago I got interested in the quilts made by the artists at Gee’s Bend. Someone had given me a set of postcards with this work and this inspired me to make a series of miniatures framed under matte board and glass. Each piece has the name of the original artist embroidered under it in a kind of caption or dedication. There are 6 in all and the big quilts form such an interesting body of work, that the miniaturization is a fascinating project. I’ve never had the guts to show them publicly in Switzerland (where I live), though, for fear of being accused a plagiarist. I wish someone could tell me if I have the right to show them or is this one piece of the work I’ve done that must stay strictly private?

 


Transforming the overlooked
by Carolyn Newberger, MA, USA
 

061907_carolyn_newberger-artwork

“Marichu”
giclee print 15 x 22 inches
by Carolyn Newberger

Appropriation requires ownership, which may be a cultural, and not a universal, concept. Any landscape with a barn, seascape with a boat, or market scene with stalls is depicting something that belongs to someone else, yet we don’t worry (at least most of us don’t) about appropriating what isn’t ours when we paint them. I would like to think that we honor our subjects by making them more visible through our art. Artists can communicate the beauty, majesty, pathos, joy, or mystery in things that are usually overlooked, unseen, or ignored. Rather than appropriating a crumbling totem pole, you are expressing its power to continue to move and inspire, even as it evolves with time. Although I can’t know for sure, I suspect that such power was the carver’s intent, not ownership.

 

 


Public property
by Vita, Sutton, QC, Canada
 

061907_vita-artwork

“Lady Shimano”
oil painting 19 x 29 inches
by Vita

You worry too much about the appropriation concept. The artistic representation of anything or anyone that is not executed for the purpose of mass distribution with the specific intent of speculation belongs to us all. In First Nation’s shops there are replicas of their ancestors’ arts and crafts. Tourists take millions of photographs of the same items and you worry about the spirits of the past. In my view, there is more respect in continuing the legacy than worrying about the spirits of the dead. In the copyrights act, it should be clear that only optical or electronic reproduction of one’s art with precise intent of marketing is forbidden. By using your own hand, you could reproduce the Giaconda and no one could say a thing.

 

 


Get permission first
by Beth Mahy, Dallas, TX, USA
 

On commissions as far as “using” an image, I’ve used other people’s work. When I am ready to “show” it, I ask permission. I tell them, if I sell this, I am going to send you 10%. I have sent out checks in the past. They are always glad to get the money. Hopefully, most artists stand on higher ground by virtue of their calling. We should not have to be exploited before and then again after, just as we would not to exploit others. I enjoy sending the money to the other artists. I always feel that they will be surprised by my honesty and that our money-making has then become concert. It gives them another way to receive from what they manifest.

 


Collage methodology and rebirth
by Jill Ehlert, Cobble Hill, BC, Canada
 

061907_jill-ehlert-artwork

“Memories Lost”
(left) collage by Jill Ehlert
(right) original image from Wikipedia

I used Photoshop to enhance the contrast of the head and printed it onto transparency paper with my Epson printer. The Phrenology image appeared in Wikipedia and stated, This image is in the public domain. Its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less. I used that transparency to transfer the black ink onto my painting. I took the picture of the trees with my digital camera and again transferred the image/ink with the same technique as the head. I pondered for a time about the ethics of using this appropriated image of the head. I have the ability to draw, but the idea of using this image was more appealing to my artistic process. I feel that this is what the spirit of collage is about – found materials and images that can have a rebirth. I would like to think that the original artist would be delighted to think that the image lives on in a painting in the year 2007.

 


Legal loopholes
by Anonymous
 

How timely your letter is. My fingers have been flying for days concerning what my artist friends and I believe to be a copyright infringement by a major (by regional standards) newspaper photography department. The issue is whether or not they can legally sell photographs and posters of anything their photographers snap under contract. To their mind, this includes images of artwork, not as part of a larger picture, just the work. You can buy a poster of said art for under $50. They are online with the paper’s copyright over the image. We have contacted an intellectual property rights attorney to see if this is some sort of loophole.

 


Unheralded compliment?
by Susan Avishai, Toronto, ON, Canada
 

061907_susan-avishai-artwork

(left) Drawing by Susan Avishai
(right) Spielberg’s Schindler’s List

It’s quite another issue when you believe your work was used as reference for another work of art. My drawing was published in 1991 in a widely sold book entitled Talking About Death by Earl A. Grollman. The film Schindler’s List came out in 1993. I cannot make the claim that the image was appropriated since the case never went to court. (Spielberg’s lawyers told me to back off so quickly that it made my head spin.) I couldn’t possibly have afforded to fight him and his lawyers, and it’s nearly impossible to prove. But it irks me to this day. What can you do besides eventually see their usage as a kind of unheralded compliment?

(RG note) Thanks, Susan. I understand your concern. Your image is, however, such a common one (I’ve painted something similar myself) that Spielberg’s lawyers would argue that the finger positioning was just a coincidence, and typical rather than unusual. If you had drawn a three-fingered child, and that had turned up on the cover, you’d have grounds.

 


Matter of principle
by Annette Waterbeek, Maple Ridge, BC, Canada
 

061907_annette_waterbeek-artwork

“Look Out”
watercolor painting 8 x 10 inches
by Annette Waterbeek

I work for a local newspaper. A few years back, a sister paper had used a picture of food taken by a local photographer. It was taken from the Web and placed in an advertisement. The photographer made a case of it and won. The paper had to pay a $10,000 fine. At the photographer’s request the money was given to charity — it was a statement he/she was wanting to make.

 

 

 

 


The value of personal style
by Helen Musser, Terrell, TX, USA
 

061907_helen-musser-artwork

“Magnolias”
watercolor painting 19 x 23 inches
by Helen Musser

I would not consider painting of totems to be copying others’ art as you use them in the total landscape to capture a way of life. Your paintings are going to a part of saving the history of the people who lived and worked there. You are saving the nature of their culture for posterity. On the other hand, I do see in others’ art some of my paintings incorporated. I feel complimented that they want to copy me. Others simply use ideas of composition to produce their paintings. I have probably done the same thing without knowing it at the time. As we look at art it enters our subliminal consciousness. The problem is that artists cannot grow if they continue to use others’ ideas, colors, and compositions knowingly. They only cheat themselves. Over the long haul it is how you develop a style that distinguishes your work from others.

 


Depreciated imagery
by Ron Stacy, Victoria, BC, Canada
 

061907_ron-stacy-artwork

“Above All”
acrylic painting 43 x 43 inches
by Ron Stacy

Long reviled, not so much by natives, but by the white academia, for what they call cultural appropriation, I have long been attracted by the graphic sense of the BC coastal natives. After a career in graphics and sign making, I was trained by a native carver, and discovered a latent talent for carving. I learned about the culture and the mythological characters and began to make paintings of these characters, using my own designs, giving them situ and colour, so they could be seen in a new way by those who wouldn’t have given this kind of art a second glance. I have never copied any existing carving or graphic, but bring my own sense to the characters of the culture.

061907_ron-stacy-artworkII

acrylic painting by Ron Stacy

Good and bad, I received a lot of attention for my efforts. Many non-native people told me that they had only seen the native art in its most graphic form and had no interest in it, but when they saw it done my way, it was attractive to them. Several natives accused me of dishonour and theft. I thought long and hard about that, and decided that those terms didn’t describe me, my work or my motives. Other native people told me that they thought my images were wonderful and were glad to see them. The Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, The University of Victoria and The Royal British Columbia Museum decided that my images were taboo, and not to be encouraged. Ironically, I noticed that almost all the books describing the native art and culture with words and pictures, were written by white academia. I have given up swimming against the politically correct current and have embarked on a series dealing with Raven, using my own mythology. I am content with that.

 


Fellow travellers became friends
by Julie Andres, Bowen Island, B. C., Canada
 

061907_ian-fry-artwork

“Out of time not out of place”
acrylic painting by Ian Fry

My husband painted this (and a smaller watercolour version) over ten years ago — he had seen the Nisga’a canoe on Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver, BC, during Expo ’86. Many works of native art were being produced at the time for the international exhibition. The juxtaposition of the city skyline and the traditional art form that long preceeded it is the ‘counterpoint’ — but perhaps it is the title itself that brings to the forefront what may be missed at first glance. Years after the painting had been sold, Ian met a Nisga’a carver, Isaac Tait, who had come here to live and work. Later, during a visit to Ian’s studio, Isaac saw a photograph of the painting and recognized it as the canoe he had once worked on. They became friends and admirers of each other’s work.

 


Native appropriates native’s work
by Maxx Maxted, Nimbin, Australia
 

061907_maxx-maxted-artwork

“La Gunjaconda”
oil painting by Maxx Maxted

We have similar problems with mis-appropriation of our indigenous aboriginal work. Sacred family stories are ripped-off onto tea towels etc. It also goes the other way. I (being an almost white, cross Carib/English migrant) was a bit culturally annoyed recently by the work of a Waragul (Melbourne indigenous group) artist who, for her Masters Visual Arts degree entered a number of competent aquatints and embossed etchings that had appropriated heavily the ‘landscape of figures’ of the Tiwi people — 4,000 kms and 200 language groups away. They were openly exhibited in the Melbourne’s Koori Heritage Centre.

 

 

 


What we’re made to do
by Chris Short, Cudahy, WI, USA
 

061907_chris-short-artistpic

Chris Short with musical co-worker Paul Vnuk Jr

My companion and I recently discussed an experiment that showed a group of children drawing in a group. One child would look at another child’s work and would start to copy what the other child was doing — but also adding their personal vision to it. He then compared this experiment with another where a chimpanzee was given a box that had to be opened in a particular way. A grape was inside so if the chimp wanted the grape it would have to figure out how to open the box. After much trial and error the chimp figured out how to open the box consistently and get the fruit. Then a group of other chimps were brought in to watch the first chimp open the box. When the other chimps were given the opportunity to try to open the box they all had to go through the same trial and error period and could not open the box from their observation of how the first chimp achieved it.

It would seem that appropriation is a natural human state and as long as we add our own twist or build on a previous work we are doing what we were made to do.

 

 

World of Art Featured artist Charlotte Rollman, IL, USA  

061907_charlotte_rollman-artwork

Inlet to Duck Lake

watercolour painting by Charlotte Rollman, IL, USA

 

You may be interested to know that artists from every state in the USA, every province in Canada, and at least 115 countries worldwide have visited these pages since January 1, 2013.

That includes Terry Krysak of Penticton, BC, Canada who wrote, “Does this Appropriation concept also apply to using a photograph that someone else took? I often get inspired to do a watercolor using a part of a published photograph. I almost never use the whole photograph for the subject matter, unless it is one of my own.” (RG note) Thanks, Terry. If you use someone else’s photo, include the photographer’s name in the title, like this: Sunset, after a photograph by Joe Bloggs.

And also Dave Edwards of the UK who wrote, “Living in England, totem poles for me are the stuff of legend. Does anyone have a photo or two of totems they could e-mail me please?”

And also Sidney Chambers of the UK who wrote, “We have a saying in England which I thought was appropriate: ‘To steal from one person is plagiarism, to steal from many people is research.’ ”

And also Norman Ridenour of Prague, Czech Republic who submitted a quote from Pablo Picasso: “I will steal from anyone but myself.”

And also Carol McBride of Canada who wrote, “This is not how indigenous people view appropriation at all. Their cultures are not ‘for the taking.’ We’ve been doing that for long enough.”

And also Edward Berkeley who wrote, “A propos of appropriation, aren’t you in a way quoting another art work, which: (a) it’s a compliment to the other artist, and (b) it’s something that writers and composers have often done, without malice or plagiarism.”

And also Helen Scott of New Bern, NC, USA who wrote, “What if, as we contemplate the ‘world of small,’ we take it and enlarge it so the grain of sand encasing the world a la William Blake becomes the size of a dinner plate? Or do we keep the sand, the hand, the wildflower and the hourglass tiny with even tinier images of the world, heaven, infinity and eternity? I wonder.”

And also Jan Bush who wrote, “I too have skulked… especially around the Haida Gwaii. The old villages carry ghosts of the past and the memory of Emily Carr. Well worth appropriating through the camera and the brush.”

And also Gene Black of Anniston, AL, USA who wrote, “Being in Alabama where growing and canning food is a way of life, the Ball canning jar is common subject matter. Would it be reasonable for Ball to take legal action against the artists who depict their product? I think not. The free advertisement should be welcomed.”

And also Judy-Joy Bevin of Australia, who wrote, “I appeal to folks’ sense of justice and honesty. What goes around comes around. Please don’t appropriate others’ work, it is beneath you, for a start, is my cry to those who do it. You are individual you have a unique creative brain. Use it. Make your own work!”

And also Tatjana Mirkov-Popovicki of Coquitlam, BC, Canada who wrote, “We are probably seeing the dusk of copyright, and maybe that’s all for the good. The global network of art admirers who can’t/won’t afford to buy originals is growing way faster than the global network of legit art collectors — that’s the fact.”

And also Susan Stafford who wrote, “Reading what you have written is an aesthetic experience, like smelling baking bread.”

And also Brian Crawford Young of Scotland who wrote, “Thank you for your words of wisdom, which are always looked forward to and always give me pause to think. I want to just say that as well as enjoying the content of your twice-weekly epistles, I enjoy the clarity of your writing style and adherence to th rules of grammar. Not many in the art world combine sincerity, brevity and erudition in one handy package. Bravo! Keep up the good work.” (RG note) Thanks, Brian and Susan, and others who have written recently with similar sentiments. It’s all done with excellent editors, particularly Judi Birnberg and Lorna MacPhee. Other subscribers have written to say it’s not that our writing is so good, it’s that everybody else’s is so bad.
 

Archived Comments

Enjoy the past comments below for Appropriation

 

 

From: Anonymous — Jun 18, 2007

As a Native American artist I stick to my own tribe or regional art. I would never represent another nation/tribe in my work just as I would never paint clan symbols of the Irish, or religious Chinese symbols. I do not understand the symbols of others thus I would never paint something that may be sacred to those peoples and step on toes. IE: Be a good human neighbor and don’t mess with others’ religion or sacred writings. As for “sulking” around on a reservation. That is private property and you are going into someone’s backyard. It is not a Federal park. You are there as a visitor and a guest whether you were invited or not. Bet you don’t print this!

From: Ed Pointer — Jun 19, 2007

Though enjoyable, making art is hard enough. If artists must jump through the “copyright hoop” to paint a subject where is the spontaniety? Granted, direct copying of an extant piece of art is one thing but painting a landscape with someone’s house in it requiring permission AND, having to even worry about such things does indeed add considerable challenge to the artistic free spirit. I think it very important that artists forget such things and concentrate on their art, not the legal system. When in the history of great painting has that ever been important!?

From: Greg Packard — Jun 19, 2007

I once asked permission to plein air paint on someone’s property. The man looked at me and said, “Sure, but you can’t sell the painting.” I couldn’t help but roll my eyes and walk away in disgust, as though he created the trees, the mountains in the background, the great vast sky and so on. I must admit I felt like spiting him and setting up in the road in front of his place, but I moved on and instead have since gotten many good laughs about it.

From: Brigitte Nowak — Jun 19, 2007

In considering appropriation and copyright issues, the concept often cited is that you can’t copyright ideas. One of the images I have painted frequently over the years is a canoe. I recognize that the canoe originated with Canada’s native population (as well as indigenous peoples around the world). The canoe I paint most frequently is the one I own. I work from photographs that I have taken. While I am occasionally surprised when I see painted images with canoes similar to mine, I have to assume that other people have similar canoes, also appreciate their lines, and enjoy rendering their own images. That said, my work has been appropriated, for profit, by an artist more famous than me, and when I objected, his retort was “I thought you’d be flattered.”

From: Janice Brandts — Jun 19, 2007

I have to comment on Appropriation. I build my painting on dreams, inspiration and a desire to understand my subject. But I do not feel we “own” anything. What I feel is we need to respect and honor that which it is we paint or otherwise create and respect those that do the same. When I paint a subject matter that subject has probably been covered by others, perhaps by the Ancients. How I embrace and find meaning in images is by living them through my art.

From: Jane Champagne — Jun 19, 2007

I’m surprised that no one has commented on Maxx Maxsted’s MISappropriation of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, the original Gioconda. To make a mockery of a work of art, even when it’s long out of copyright, is sickening, just plain bad art.

From: Bev Peden — Jun 19, 2007

Appropriation of culture seems to me to indicate the stealing of a culture which is not your own. What happens when people live inside a culture for a significant period of time? Do they not absorb and observe that culture, and does it not become part of their dialogue? Are they supposed to stay silent about a significant period of their life? We have lived in East Africa and Ethiopia for a total of 20 years. My children have been raised there. We have a Ugandan daughter-in-law. My etchings and paintings reflect my experiences there, the colour, the rhythms, the images that are burned into my brain and heart. The people I love, the faces they hold, the tragedies and joys of their lives and mine, and the intertwining of our worlds have enriched me. When I use their images, it is from my sketchbook, which has been knowingly witnessed and approved by those I sketch and draw. I have tried to use some of the money garnered from sales of work to help with the women’s group where I lived. I see no dishonour in this intent, no attempt to “rip off” a culture, and no claim that the culture is mine or that I “know” it. I do see myself interpreting my experiences into my work. If that offends someone, perhaps they need to look at why they are offended?

From: Scharolette — Jun 19, 2007

If we as artists are painting a landscape and art is in the landscape, isn’t that straight forward, we are painting what we see whether it is a totem or church, or sculpture. If you sat down and started carving the totem that was there in front of you then I’d say you would be infringed, self as well as the art of another. Infringing yourself well why would we when there is so much more to create that has not been seen?

From: Henri Carter — Jun 19, 2007

Why would you print a letter you were politely asked not to? Do you not have manners?

From: Tinker Bachant — Jun 19, 2007

What if an artist is painting plein air and the subject happens to include an advertising sign, i.e. Coca Cola, much seen in the southern US, on the sides of buildings. Is this not appropriation? Or the buildings themselves. They were created by another person for another person, not painters or photographers. If it’s not copyrighted it’s apparently fair game.

From: Comments moderator — Jun 19, 2007
From: Lillian M. Wu — Jun 19, 2007

When Eve was created, didn’t God use appropriation?

From: Barbara Spyrou — Jun 19, 2007

This subject of appropriation is puzzling to me. To all those who are so objective to the matter, I suggest they look at the works of all the famous artists of the Renaissance. Where art in the Western world would be if these artists didn’t copy the ancient Greek works of art? I never heard any Greek living today to protest about this kind of appropriation. As a Greek, I consider myself flattered that my ancestors were and still are so admired, that they are constantly being copied. I believe, that no matter how hard one tries to copy anything, still, at the end there will be the personal touch of the copying artist, therefore the work will be a new work looking similar but not exactly the same as the work they copied. True, I do believe that one must acknowledge the source of his/her inspiration as a token of respect to the original artist, but that’s all. Everything else belongs to the world to experiment with and hopefully, to enhance.

From: Mike Hill — Jun 19, 2007

I have to agree with Robert Bisset and others. Most of the time, upon reading this newsletter and the comments, I am jumpstarted with a creative spark, other times I shake my head. My background and vocation is engineering and construction – very literal, analytical, and logical.

1. As an artist, if you think you are doing something completely original and new, you probably haven’t done enough research.

2. To copy someone verbatim or to copy something precisely and sell either as your own is wrong. To literally and physically take/steal someone’s work is wrong, and then to sell that work is also wrong.

3. Logically and analytically, if every piece of art produced had to be truly unique every artist would be a fraud. Half dome in Yosemite has been photographed and painted innumerable times. If tomorrow, you painted it for the 100,000,000th plus one time, if you were honest with yourself, those of you who are upset with appropriation would have to recognize that per your definition, this is dishonest. Taking emotion out of it, it wouldn’t matter that you painted in different colors, in a different media, with a different brush, with a knife, at a different time of day, or even a different angle. What does that leave to paint? A single color canvas such as what Rothko might do? Maybe I spoke for that particular red a few years earlier than he did (how crass of him to steal MY color)! I guess I could paint my big toe! But wait, maybe yours has nail fungus also and looks like mine! Too complicated! I’ll just stick with digging holes and sticking my head in them.

4. To anonymous (who doesn’t appropriate anything): You are likely living in a building whose basic tenets and philosophy of design and construction are not American Indian derived but of European derivation and you are using a language that is not of American Indian origin, but of many different origins. So to say one does appropriate, might not be a true statement. BTW, reservation lands are not necessarily private, unless someone has purchased and owns the piece of property, much of reservation land is held in trust by the US Government.

5. After reading these posts, who actually owns the “copyright” on a totem? – the carver, or the family/individual whose story is being told?

6. There are much worse things in life to worry about than whether someone’s painting is similar to mine, or my 5 x 4 image of the Tetons has been taken real close to where Ansel Adams took his 8 x 10 image of the Tetons. I volunteer to work with people who would gladly have those “problems” and not the life-ending problems that they have been given.

From: Maxx Maxted — Jun 19, 2007

Thanks for correcting my quote from Schiller to Goethe. I ‘ates bein’ iggerunt!

From: Chris Everest — Jun 20, 2007

I must admit that not being a professional artist I had not thought of many of these concepts before. I work in a University library and we are increasingly becoming aware (in no small part due to the Internet and WWW) of the problems of plagiarism. The using of other people’s words and ideas without acknowledging them. As an artist with no intention of selling (probably not good enough anyway) I regularly “borrow” from photographs, or pictures printed in magazines. It is a good form of practice – but if creating a work intended to sell, could you combine images copied from such sources and describe it as an “homage” albeit an inspirational one. Each artist, it seems to me, is simply the last in a long tradition combining the conventional and the avant-garde, the classical and the romantic, the blending of style according to that one very particular individual = the artist himself.

From: Monique Cantin — Jun 20, 2007

I paint portraits as a hobby (oils). Lately, I painted a few «originals» inspired by fashion pictures of Models, the way the light falls on their faces and hands, and really enjoyed appropriating this wonderful material. So I wrote to the Magazine in question, asking about copywrights. I did not get any answer yet. Do you or your readers have any ideas about this matter ? Thanks, Monique

From: Anonymous — Jun 20, 2007

Mike Hill, I do agree with most of your comments but NOT about sacred items or symbols. I still feel to be a good human neighbor we must respect ALL others and not use their religious items or symbols. The totem carver owns his totem and a good person would never steal the image for gain or profit. If the person is given permission to use it, it is one thing. Granted there are some native peoples who do steal sacred images and we have a name for them, but I will not print it. One of the worse cases of misappropriation is the “Whirling log” symbol. It was not a sacred symbol but was used for centuries by the Native peoples of North America as a symbol for ‘Good luck.” Hitler chose to use this symbol for the Nazi campaign and it was re-named the Swastika…a symbol of hate and racism. You are literally correct to say the Native American Reservations are held in “Trust by the US government.” Just like the land you have purchased and your house sits on. At any time your city, county, state or federal government can implement Eminent Domain and pay you a ‘fair market value’ for your property. Thus, to be literal, your property also is held in “Trust.” The term “held in trust by US government” means the people have to follow Federal laws. But reservations are PRIVATE property by way of a treaty and/or purchase. The reservations are not subject to state, county or city laws except their own. We have our own court systems, jails, taxes, license plates, constitutions etc. It IS private property, only the cities, county and state cannot use Eminent Domain so actually our private property is a little more protected than your private property from taking of land. Thank you Mike for allowing me to clear up some misconceptions. Also, for those who think all Native Americans are given a monthly check… Geeee, I only wish!

From: Mike Hill — Jun 21, 2007

Anonymous, Great conversation and wonderful information – I had not heard about the “whirling log”. In my naivete, I thought the symbol had originated in Northern European, medieval times or something such as that. Thanks for the info on the Totem also. I had actually thrashed that around in the back of my mind after visiting the NW and Alaska for the first time many years ago. If the totem told a story about a person or family, I had wondered if that person/family owned the rights. Good points on the land ownership. And if I am not mistaken, I’ve been told that some tribes and/or individuals have also purchased/owned/had deed to the land prior to it being deem a “reservation”. I guess that truly confuses things! BTW, we don’t disagree on the religious and sacred symbols. It is just that I have had to “turn the other cheek” so much, that I guess it doesn’t faze me much anymore. As a very active, practicing Christian, the symbols/art/writings of my faith/religion are pretty much daily/hourly desecrated and abused. But what can I do about it except realize that the desecration cannot and will not make my faith falter! I wish it were different though! “Also, for those who think all Native Americans are given a monthly check… Geeee, I only wish!” Maybe you need to move to Alaska, don’t all the citizens there get some sort of stipend or tax refund based on the oil extracted? Hey that is not a bad idea! Honey, get the kid and pack, we’re moving to Alaska! It has been a dream of mine!

From: Valerie Norberry — Jun 22, 2007

It is interesting to note that in copyright law in the U.S. calligraphy is not copyrightable however illustration is. I sometimes wend my letters around my illustrations of flowers and plants, etc., hoping to frustrate anyone who would plagerize my beloved botanical illustrations and reproduce them on a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer!!!! Ha ha. I have done a lot of calligraphy that way, with the illustration winding between the letters of the calligraphy.

From: Faith Puleston — Jun 23, 2007

Dear Anonymous, If you feel so strongly about this, why don’t you reveal who you are?

From: Vanessa Cheyne — Jun 26, 2007

Having attended many art classes over the years, I have found that although we all may have been given the same vision to paint, whether it has been animal, vegetable or mineral, no paintings or drawings have turned out the same results, although we have been copying, in a sense, something. However, it is interesting to note how many artists have to resort to using grids or tracing papers because they really cannot copy unless they use this method, as opposed to the artist who is able to copy “freehand” something they have admired.

 

Share.

Leave A Reply

No Featured Workshop
No Featured Workshop
Share.

Robert and Sara Genn Twice-Weekly Letters

Subscribe and receive the Twice-Weekly letter on art. You’ll be joining a worldwide community of artists.
Subscription is free.