Week 21: 4th – 10th February
The further I delve into ideas of agency and art objects, especially in a global context, the more challenging I find my question (and art practice) to be. Recently I’ve been considering the nature of the images/objects that artists create, and the subjects that they aim to address through their practice.
Given that my (and countless other art practices) are often predicated on their relationship with objects and/or events in the ‘real’ world, the question of appropriation seems pertinent. Aesthetic objects are often used as transferers of meaning within culture in general, and in this sense are part of a complex social system of exchange, be that ritualised, monetary or ideological.
This also calls into question the structures that enable certain images/objects to become more important in a society, and indeed, which of these are in turn appropriated by other societies in line with their perceptions of the ‘other’. In this case, the ‘other’ may also refer to subsections of a society such as women, children or people in asylums.
The role of the artist
This is not to say that artists don’t have a particular specialised role in the creation of aesthetic objects, but that the (often invisible) structures surrounding the production and consumption of these objects play a large part in the construction of their meaning within society.
Unless the work of art is entirely self-referential it will always index something outside of itself, that is, it appropriates an object from the ‘real world’ in order to confirm or question a ‘truth’ about this. However, this relationship between the work of art and its subject (or index and prototype) is also problematic, as the provenance of the prototype is itself subject to hierarchical structures.
Deborah Root discusses the nature of cultural appropriation: ‘…the term signifies not only the taking up of something and making it one’s own but also the ability to do so. People have always shared ideas and borrowed from one another, but appropriation is entirely different from borrowing or sharing because it involves the taking up and commodification of aesthetic, cultural, and, more recently, spiritual forms of a society.’
(Root, p.70)
Appropriation as investigation
Take for example, the work of Marina Abramovic, who revised and condensed her own past performance works, as a way to understand how the work of art might become a text to be read and reframed by others, in the same way that an actor might perform a script. This investigation into the concept of originality culminated in her work Seven Easy Pieces, which consisted of re-enacted canonical performances by other artists, including Bruce Nauman and Joseph Beuys, and was performed over a series of events at the Guggenheim in 2005. (Richards, pp.35-36)
The artist’s intention was effectively to open up the art market to the production of new cultural hybrids where the meaning of a work of art is questioned and reframed with each subsequent performance. This in turn, led to the creation of a set of guidelines when undertaking this practice. Abramovic states: “Ask the artist for permission. Pay the artist for copyright. Perform a new interpretation of the piece. Exhibit the original material: photographs, videos, relics. Exhibit a new interpretation of the piece.” (Richards, pp.35-36)
Art in a global context
However, although this acknowledges the use of the work of previous artists, it frames this exchange purely within the context of a Western art market. Given that these performances commodify elements of a participatory nature, as well as borrowed ritual aesthetics such as Shamanic imagery, any claims to circumvent the restrictions of the market are problematic.
Of course, the idea that any society is culturally homogenous is disingenous, as cultures are known to borrow from each other, ‘be it from a position of dominance or subordination’ and often to the effect of challenging the hegemony of traditional cultural appropriation. (Welchman, p.1). However, the challenge now seems to be how these processes of creation, appropriation and interpretation are made transparent within the act of consumption of the work of art itself.
Further reading
‘Cannibal Culture: Art, Appropriation and the Commodification of Difference’, Deborah Root, 1996
‘Marina Abramovic’, Mary Richards, 2010
‘Art After Appropriation: Essays on Art in the 1990s’, John Welchman, 2001
