Friday, September 24, 2021
 

What’s Good for the Goose…


is not necessarily good for the gander. An article in Sunday’s NY Times asks what many a contemporary artist has asked: what do we do when a corporate conglomerate appropriates (read: steals) our artwork? More poignantly, what is a contemporary artist who herself steals or appropriates from mass media to do?

“I don’t consider what I do stealing,” says Christian Marclay. “I’m quoting cultural references that everyone is familiar with. I make art that reflects the culture I live in. […] I’m not trying to sell phones” (speaking of an i-Phone commercial).

This may be true. But…


even if we dismiss the fact that Marclay’s art work sells for a decent profit, what is more disturbing is Marclay’s belief that his own arwork is not imbeded in and therefore part of, culture. Perhaps if he did he would be allowing for the appropriation of his own work for so-called “commercial” reasons, if the logic of his own argument is that one can appropriate pre-created visual culture (“at large”) for the sake of creating more culture, regardless of intent.

Either way, we agree with Donn Zaretsky, that inspiration is one thing, blatant stealing is something else: “It does seem like like advertising people are pushing the envelope on this…[t]hey’re being more and more brazen in their borrowing. On the one hand they should be mining the artworld for inspiration…[b]ut more and more they seem to be getting into the territory of blatant rip-offs.” After all, larger corporations that can afford to place advertising on major television and cable networks can certainly afford to hire creative, and yes, original, designers and commercial producers. In the end, the amount of monetary gain obtained by even a financially thriving artist is but a speck compared to the millions corporations make peddling their wares, Apple and Toyota included of course. Perhaps we should all (artworld included of course) stop pretending there is an art-market and a financial market at large, as if one is sanctimoniously blessed with preferential ideological or aesthetic value. Of course, the allowance of this position would (perniciously?) disrupt the comfortable utopia which the mere belief in art has created.

 

Comments

No comments so far.
  • Leave a Reply
     
    Your gravatar
    Your Name
     
     
     

     
     
 
Legal

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.
 

Switch to our mobile site