Homework 4

  Appropriation is taking one thing and stripping of it's associated meaning to use as one pleases with a new purpose. Fair use is any copying of copy-righted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. Appropriation and fair use would be considered enemies in my opinion, as appropriation carries a negative connotation of "taking something" and fair use has a positive connotation of "legitimate borrowing". Donn Zaretsky asks, “How do you decide whether something is transformative or just not quite transformative enough?” This is difficult to answer because I think the truth comes from how each version of the art makes you feel and if there is a difference. Articulating a vibe of feeling you receive from different artworks is strenuous. And much of this depends on a person and their experience or perception of art in general. What is grey about the court decision is that they ruled that an reasonable observer should make the distinction on wether or not the work was transformative, but that's all rather vague. 

  The New York Times called appropriation "a controversial but longstanding postmodern artistic strategy". But to me, appropriation is a negative word and doesn't entirely express what happens when an artist makes something new using existing materials. I really have no idea how to make a hard line in the distinction of transformative, which makes defining it all the more harder for legal matters. I think Barbara Kruger's method of appropriation is more accepted than Richard Prince's. Kruger makes an obvious distinction between the original photo by adding her own text that literally states her new message she's trying to deliver. I wouldn't say her form of appropriation is more valid, but it is more obvious and probably easier to understand than Prince's interpretation of appropriating. 

  Richard Prince sucks. Overall, his instagram installation just makes me angry. Who is buying these massive screenshots for $90,000? Why aren't they just replicating them like Suicide Girls? Besides the impracticality of it, it seems like a cheap way to create a gallery and sell it. It angers me that people want to be a part of his collection because they already have his collection, available to anyone with an Instagram account. It's not appropriation to me because a comment doesn't send a message that changes the photo. It just made Prince look sleazy, like the Huffington Post said. I guess to me, appropriation should be obvious. The only way I would accept Prince's installment of one of my Instagram photos would be if they were actually altered. The idea that he sells them for so much too is infuriating. To me, the price of the "art" just tells me that he's in it for the money and is trying to put his name brand on anything and everything to sell it.