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.

PART 1: Challenges in the Art world

Abstract

Part 1
Jeff Koons has become a trademark for what not to do. He has been sued, slammed and reported on from since the 1980’s when he first copied Art Rogers Postcard ‘Puppies’ into a life-sized polychromed wood sculpture named ‘string of puppies’ in 1988. Issues revolved around copyright and fair use however, Koons complied with none of these conventions and was ordered to destroy his sculptural reproduction and the case was closed.

Brian Sherwin (Art critic and writer for Fineartviews) contends “originality in art, as in all things, does not exist”. This concept raises a debate on whether or not an artwork can be truly original, and not appropriated from anything else. Robert Hughes examined Koons and his appropriations as “calculated and obvious attempts to manipulate collectors” thought their desire to be “challenged”. It’s true that his artworks are commercialized, kitsch and ‘readymade’; he has over 20 artisans working for him at once and manufacturing his ideas of everyday banal objects and transforming them with varnish, a reflective finish or enlarging.

This concept is far from original and is attributed to Marcel Duchamp‘s iconic urinal “” and readymade objects that coined the Dada movement in the early 20^th century, which rejected logic praising nonsense, irrationality and intuition. Ironically this originality of anti-art has become the norm with Artists like Andy Warhol and Koons who have been exploiting its commercial appeal to the art market and its audience. Koons has also copied the idea of ‘artist as a label and celebrity’ from Warhol; making himself the commodity. Again Koons’ influence extends to Warhol’s iconic repetition of objects; as seen in the 32 canvases of “” in which the same image is reproduced with varied labels on the front. Koons’ repetition is now “too repetitive” and “unoriginal” for Postmodern art (Matthew Collings).

PART 2: New-age appropriation and ‘the remix’

Abstract