PART 2:
I believe that appropriation grows from the ideas of the past rather than obstructing originality and creativity, and therefore is an important part of cultural evolution. As Michael Mandiberg (Artist and blogger) puts it “Appropriation is a way to experiment with images and objects by shifting the context around them”; in effect re-framing their meaning in the process. In this way Koons’ art challenges the way people think about originality and whether or not it is actually important in this day and age; in doing so he also challenges the ethical standards of appropriating another artists work to heighten its existence. In many instances, Koons disobeys the moral rights of the artist by not attributing their name under ‘his’ work. In my opinion Jeff Koons did not distort Art Rogers’ “puppies” in a way that may haveharmed his reputation in breach of his moral and legal rights of integrity.
The problem with this type of appropriation these days is that the entire edifice of contemporary art is built on the idea of total revolution, of things new and challenging. The one thing that contemporary artist may lack however is the connection to the past when priding themselves as ‘original artists’. This is impossible to achieve as everyone who functions in society is bombarded with art and advertisements.
In the age of the Internet and advancing technology there is a sense that no one owns the copyright of their own work as it can be freely distributed outside the gallery system. This allows others to appropriate your own appropriation of authenticity. Now the medium we choose to express ourselves is not an original direction; it is not an original idea.
Literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes argues that ‘no artist can create something new and unique’, but rather everything is ‘recycled regurgitation’ of what preceded it. Koons’ remix of society is ‘recycled’ and ‘regurgitated’ into living visual history of kitsch and readymade. This issue and debate on originality is an ongoing dilemma.