Appropriation

 I do not like this form of art. I think they are mere copies of old art work to convey some kinds of new interoperation. I am sure I am not the only one that will make subjective and biased comments like above. Chan’s Mona Lisa can be an example for appropriation. I cannot wait to see what he is going to say about this.

Objectively, this form of art tells the viewers the appropriation artists interpretation on the original context, brings some nuances of those “old’’, conventional, traditional, classic, classical arts as some might be tired or even bored of either the old art itself or its very official interoperation by some art historians, gives freshmen chances to know those “old” art, and agitates some who hold unswerving respect.

According to MoMALearning, which is quite official (how contradicting), appropriation is defined as "the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects” even though I “should not copy any definitions or regurgitate or synopsize information you have read. These thoughts should be based on your own understanding of what you have read and researched.” I am borrowing intentionally because stealing and plagiarizing are intentional as well, but how intentional is intentional enough to be categorized as the later. There were people suing for their copy rights.  

How do these grey-zone art works prevail? According to my research which is very limited and deduction, there must be a hard time for those appropriation artist even though its movement is contemporary, and appropriation it self falls under post-modernism. Before the impressionism had caused an attention and impact in the society, art works were expected to be microscopically accurate and would be exhibited in Salon only when qualified by Jury of the Universal Exposition. Monet, Manet, Dekacroix’s works would all be considered as trash. However, they succeeded because they had the gut to pursue in their ideology and acquire the intelligence in making the decision that instead being a little fish in a deep and competitive pond which is the Salon, they wanted to a big fish in a small pond even though there was not a small pond yet. Thus, they built one themselves. When appropriation first appeared, I wonder how much opposition would there be. But just like those impressionists, their disagreeableness or inconformity hold their backs and push them forward. 

No one had thought about using other people’s work to make new point and association with contemporary context, and thus appropriation art is an invention, an odd birth but as beautiful as those others.