
This piece is pivotal within the history of art as it is the first example of an artist taking an object and displaying it, as found, within a gallery context. This is appropriation in its purest form within the visual arts. Where the art comes is that by experiencing the object out of its normal context the viewer is invited to consider it on different terms. This may be the consideration of the aesthetic value of something that is considered to be simply practical. It also poses the question of artistic originality and authenticity. It asks the question 'do you have to make something yourself in order for it to be your own work of art?'. With this one step Duchamp opened up the possibilities of art. Art was not just about hand eye coordination but about the adept or poetical choice of objects and ideas.

This is evident in all media from the visual arts through to music and commercial culture such as advertisements. Within the music industry sampling is often used to take a small part of one song to create another. However, to find the 'purest' form of appropriation the cover version is more effective. For example, the Sex Pistol's cover of 'I did it my way' by Frank Sinatra brings with it many new connotations. In the original version Sinatra's rendition of the lyrics can be seen to be a comment about his struggle to reach the top of the music business. In the Sex Pistol's version we can not help but reflect on their struggles with substance abuse. Again we see a shift in meaning attaching itself to a single cultural reference point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIXg9KUiy00

With the ease of access to computer technology over the last two decades it is easier than ever before for anyone to obtain the work of others. Just as popular culture has become more accessible in terms of the ability to produce, so to appropriation has become a far more accepted part of the way popular culture expresses itself. This can be evidenced across the internet on sites such as Youtube and My Space. Here it is easy to take a pop song or image and show it within your own page or site. Instead of a bedroom wall as the site of the consumption for this iconography it is the internet. With this comes instant networking and publication to allow the imagery to be reinterpreted once more. One example is the adaptation of a song with new images as a way to personalise it. Whilst this is not a pure example of appropriation as the original has been altered the song itself has been given a new more personal meaning. Here we can see the same shift in meaning from a single cultural reference point - in this case a pop song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvS90FLE1oE
Through the history of appropriation we can see the process go from controversial large scale public statement through to a proliferation of reinterpration on an ever more personal scale.
"A shifting of values for a fixed point" - This phrase seems important.
ReplyDeleteReally like Sherrie Levine's stuff - either haven't come across her before, or have lost that part of my brain. I like Levine’s appropriation of R Mutt.
Also – http://www.aftersherrielevine.com/texts.html
The Selfridge's appropriation of Kruger's appropriation of advertising imagery is fantastic and bleak. I see this (and much of the use of postmodernity by advertisers) as an act of a appropriation that is entirely hegemonical. Meaning has been either removed (by denying the link to the original meaning) or moved (by making the link ironic, which in turn excuses the original meaning or positions it as meaningless/ ironic/ not important), and in that way subversion is integrated and the hegemony shifts to retain a new dominant ideology ("It's okay to be a consumer really - if you're an ironic consumer!").
This, to me, is a case of appropriation favouring the already powerful and it depresses me. I see appropriation as an act of subversion/ power (in the Foucauldian sense). Appropriation is used by so many wonderful people to take the discourse/ meanings of the powerful and to challenge, contest and question the meanings (and power) that they hold, whether it be R Mutt and the discourse, meanings and structures of art; Levine, with class, gender politics and creativity; Kruger and consumerism... Satirists from the 18th century to today; from Chris Morris' appropriation of the discourse of news in The Day Today, to Jonathan Swift's appropriation of parliamentary discourse in A Modest Proposal… I see appropriation as something subversive, challenging and powerful.
The appropriation of appropriation by the already powerful/ the advertisers/ Selfridges/ utilizes irony as a distancing device whereby all meaning is surface (or, the meaning of the original is removed/ stripped/ emptied) and thus the act of appropriation has itself been appropriated in a way that removes the meaning of the act as a form of subversion/ an act of power. I see this particularly in the appropriation of irony and post-modernism by the faux-ironic, celeb-presenters on Radio1/ T4/ everywhere-I-fucking-look, who I feel take signs, empty them of meaning, and present them to the audience through a form of appropriation that is entirely subversion-free. This might be through Alexa Chung’s (Top Shop-style) appropriation of punk clothing, or within the language they use. An act of power and subversion is being sold back to us without the power/ subversion.
This saddens me. All of the artists you reference can be seen as enacting a form of postmodern appropriation, central to which is the challenging of meanings and the questioning of discourses. And yet Selfridges et al seem to have enacted the ultimate hegemonical shift, appropriating appropriation in a way which removes (or, worse, corporately incorporates) these meanings.
My cat helped me write this comment.
I want to say more about Sid and My Way, which I think is an act of appropriation that uses original meanings and contextual meanings in a way that is subversive and which I think is majestic.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the mockery of sincerity in the opening, with the canned applause etc, establishes the video within the context of the original Sinatra version, but with a (quite cheap) stance of mockery. It establishes a context of the original meanings.
The attack of punk aesthetics after the introduction includes the sneer (appropriated from Elvis?) and the aggressive guitars. The shifting of form/ instrumentation acts as a critique of the form of the original; a kind of critique of the alienating pomposity of the (instrumentation, delivery, class... of the) original (which, undeniably, is the preserve of the powerful). I think this is reinforced by the use of the stage, the suit, the lights, the colours.
I see the track as an attack on the alienating pomposity of mid-twentieth century power and its ignorance of the powerless. Like R Mutt, Levine and Kruger, the song/ video uses appropriated texts (Sinatra's lyrics and song) within new contexts (Sid's decline/ punk's aggression/ the voice of a new generation) as an aggressive critique that questions, challenges and contests the original meanings.
In the original there's the lines: "For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught To say the things he truly feels." Is the appropriation of these lyrics the direct protest of an alienated generation, left without their own meanings by the dominant ideologies of the establishment in the latter part of the 20th century?
Apparently, the original lyricist for the song said he had been "somewhat destabilised by the Sex Pistols' version. It was kind of curious, but I felt he (Sid Vicious) was sincere about it." This act of appropriation is DEEPLY sincere, I feel. Especially when compared the appropriation of punk aesthetics (Ramones T Shirts from TopShop) in contemporary culture.
Appropriation is being tamed.
Have just looked up the Celine Dion track you linked to.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you tricked me into listening to Celine Dion.
I note the comment from cietleen: "I really love this song...It is so meaningful...full of love I wish that someday I can do all my promises to my bf..." Is that you?
Read the other comments on the Celine Dion page. They're fantastic.
ReplyDeleteOnce again you read my thoughts and write them before i get there. Finishing off my paragraphs for me...Creating the substance of the shadows of words i write.
ReplyDeleteThe appropriation of appropriation by the mainstream could be seen as a conscious attempt to subdue its subversive qualities. It could just be that commercial culture takes whatever ideas seem new and fresh and regurgitate them without the original nutritional value! Thought does not sell. Either way approppriation is not what it used to be. I was worried that you might think i was actually trying to attach some critical value to these uses on Youtube (You know it is me baby!). And yet why should we sneer because someone has found some kind of meaning in something we have not?
I do love the idea of sincere appropriation. Unless that is the definition of 'post-ironic' in which case i hate it! (Are you being sarcastic? I do not know anymore!)
I'm being post-sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of post-ironic troubles me. I don't understand it yet.
ReplyDelete