Response to "Apropos Appropriation"
article by Randy Kennedy here
Though I could see the logic on both sides of the argument for the majority of the article, the moment where Cariou's lawyer says, “It can’t just be random, that he ‘liked it,’ because there’s no practical boundary to that,” really bugged me. At the heart of that statement lies the problem: quantifiable standards attempting to control something as intangible as the spirit behind a person's art. But on some level I agree with the judge's ruling that you can't appropriate another person's art without commenting on it. What is the purpose of having someone else's work there for reference if you don't mean to say something specific about it? Otherwise, you should just create your own imagery, using theirs as inspiration. For example, you would never quote someone else's writing in an essay just because it has the same themes as what you're writing about, and then never give reason for why the quote was there (unless you're a bad writer). The same seems to go for visual art. In regards to the internet, I have to painfully agree that many of the places where we post our art make it easy and even encourage others to share and alter it. It is almost as though once someone posts something online, it becomes the internet's - the property of an ever-giving mother. At the same time, it's the best bet for artists who want to share their work for the betterment of mankind. Either way, internet or not, there is sacrifice.
I wonder what would happen if someone took Prince's art and changed it to the extent that he changed Cariou's. Would he take them to court?