I found it interesting to compare my experience with the imitation assignment to the ideas posed by Larry Lessig and John Berger about the role of appropriation in art. Both discussed the ability of technology to reframe the context of an art piece. In “Ways of Seeing,” Berger described how, before the invention of the camera, art was inherently tied to its context. People would make pilgrimages to view famous works, instilling them with gravity and importance. The uniqueness of the pieces’ surroundings contributed to the experience people had with the art itself. With the arrival of the camera, it was possible for these pieces to travel to people’s homes, placing the art within the context of their own lives. He seemed to resent the loss of the pilgrimage, but to some extent I believe that viewing art in a familiar context can actually instill it with increased significance. I have a more intimate relationship with my poster of a Van Gogh painting than I might have viewing the original painting in a museum, because this poster has traveled with me to different homes and has been privy to many of my life events. To some extent, my shared experience with the poster has changed its meaning.
This idea ties into Larry Lessig’s idea about the recreation of art. He talks about how technology has allowed our generation to transform the works of other artists by placing them in a different context (usually form is altered as well.) I think it’s interesting to distinguish this type of appropriation from the photographs that Berger discussed. People have no problem with the copying of masterpieces for books about fine art, but the use of someone else’s art in another piece makes many people uncomfortable. I think that this distinction arises from the definition of art: no one is claiming that the photographs in art books are their way of expressing creativity, but young people re-vamping video clips are calling them their own. This is very interesting to me, because it demonstrates how concerned our society is with ownership.
The imitation assignment touched on both of these forms of appropriation. I copied a Van Gogh sketch, but I copied it off of a printed out scan of a photograph in an art book. I have a much closer relationship with my copy of Van Gogh’s piece than I do with the original, even though the two pieces are many steps removed. However, I would not go as far to say that my drawing is my own creative expression, because I did not change the content of the piece to reflect any of my own ideas. However, the formal aspect of copying this sketch was interesting. It is clear that Van Gogh’s drawing is extremely free, yet I tried to copy his haphazard lines as well as I could to imitate the precise image. In some ways, my copy would have been closer to the original (in content, at least) if I had looked at the woman and drawn her in my own free style rather than worrying about the exact placement of each line and shadow. Regardless, I had a great time developing a relationship with this drawing in my own personal context.
This idea ties into Larry Lessig’s idea about the recreation of art. He talks about how technology has allowed our generation to transform the works of other artists by placing them in a different context (usually form is altered as well.) I think it’s interesting to distinguish this type of appropriation from the photographs that Berger discussed. People have no problem with the copying of masterpieces for books about fine art, but the use of someone else’s art in another piece makes many people uncomfortable. I think that this distinction arises from the definition of art: no one is claiming that the photographs in art books are their way of expressing creativity, but young people re-vamping video clips are calling them their own. This is very interesting to me, because it demonstrates how concerned our society is with ownership.
The imitation assignment touched on both of these forms of appropriation. I copied a Van Gogh sketch, but I copied it off of a printed out scan of a photograph in an art book. I have a much closer relationship with my copy of Van Gogh’s piece than I do with the original, even though the two pieces are many steps removed. However, I would not go as far to say that my drawing is my own creative expression, because I did not change the content of the piece to reflect any of my own ideas. However, the formal aspect of copying this sketch was interesting. It is clear that Van Gogh’s drawing is extremely free, yet I tried to copy his haphazard lines as well as I could to imitate the precise image. In some ways, my copy would have been closer to the original (in content, at least) if I had looked at the woman and drawn her in my own free style rather than worrying about the exact placement of each line and shadow. Regardless, I had a great time developing a relationship with this drawing in my own personal context.
No comments:
Post a Comment