Difference between revisions of "User:Fuutsie"

From DigitalCraft_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<div style="width:65em;font-size:16px;font-family:Arial;display:block;padding:5px;color:black;background:linear-gradient(to bottom right,#FCF9EF,#E9E5DA,#E1DACE,#FF2288);border:2px inset blue;">
 
<div style="width:65em;font-size:16px;font-family:Arial;display:block;padding:5px;color:black;background:linear-gradient(to bottom right,#FCF9EF,#E9E5DA,#E1DACE,#FF2288);border:2px inset blue;">
  
{| role="presentation" class="wikitable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
+
=Appropriation, the early research=
| <strong>Appropriation, the early research</strong>
+
 
|-
+
The quickest explanation is repurposing an object/artpiece as is to give it another function or meaning. This can be as simple as turning a table upside down, but can also exist in the way of Pablo Picasso’s “Guitar, Sheet music and Wine glass, where existing pieces come together to form a new work. This way a NEW object is created.
|The quickest explanation is repurposing an object/artpiece as is to give it another function or meaning. This can be as simple as turning a table upside down, but can also exist in the way of Pablo Picasso’s “Guitar, Sheet music and Wine glass, where existing pieces come together to form a new work. This way a NEW object is created.
 
  
  
Line 30: Line 29:
  
  
|}
 
  
  

Revision as of 08:55, 10 May 2018

Appropriation, the early research

The quickest explanation is repurposing an object/artpiece as is to give it another function or meaning. This can be as simple as turning a table upside down, but can also exist in the way of Pablo Picasso’s “Guitar, Sheet music and Wine glass, where existing pieces come together to form a new work. This way a NEW object is created.


Another way of looking at it is by using objects not in the way the designer/artist has intended it to. For example truck inner tires being used as floating devices or a table being used to sit on. Here semiotics come into play: Playing with what is expected from the user. This way an EXISTING object is used in a different way.


Appropriation also has a bad aftertaste in some fields, as it is also connected with copyright infringement. This happens when someone takes the work without consent or approval of the original owner.

When is it a new work? When is the original function (or meaning) new enough to be classified as original?

Everything has to come from somewhere: Linking artists/designers interpretations throughout his life and combining this into a new piece. (David T. Ansted - The stone book of nature) This way everything made, copied or not should be interpreted as a new work. You can’t copy something that doesn’t exist. Take “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” of Ren’e Magritte. In the same way you could perfectly copy an artwork, but the function and meaning change: If you repaint/reproduce Victory Boogie Woogie from Mondriaan, it isn’t about Manhattan or the music on the streets, but more about Piet Mondriaan and the fame behind his name.


Some interesting questions I did not go on with for now:

Why do we not like being copied by other people? Does the intention of copying change the ethics of appropriation? Type of person that does it with intention of gaining profit?


https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/art_market/art_101_appropriation_art-5550