Handed-down distortions of truth. Its all about challenging the idea of originality and walking delicately over eggshells or hot coals depending on the context. The image seems familiar but the projection, or its juxtaposition or message is not. Where are the boundaries? When artists quote cultural references that most are familiar with its called making art that reflects the culture they live in such as in the works of Christian Marclay and Richard Prince. While it is easy to sympathize with artists who believe their work has been copied, they also need to recognize their own reliance on existing images, that are often copyrighted.
In a sense, culture is about ongoing borrowing and redirection. This idea about grabbing images, ideas and motifs and opening them up to new uses towards a new “clientele” could unequivocally be condoned in the use of political-remix videos. However, it could also be argued that large corporations that apportion artists work in ways they would not see as flattering are also political in a sense that corporate advertising in all mediums is totally ideological: the status quo and expansion of the existing market system, and their work is this a form of political-remix…. The cycle of influence goes round and round: Ad agencies borrow from artists who borrow from advertising. Isn’t it great when things just work? Read More: http://www.moca.org/pc/viewArtTerm.php?id=2
“I don’t consider what I do stealing,” Mr. Marclay said. “I’m quoting cultural references that everyone is familiar with. I make art that reflects the culture I live in.” And unlike advertisers, he said, “I’m not trying to sell phones.”…Artists have been appropriating images from Madison Avenue for decades. In the 1960s Andy Warhol made silk-screened copies of Brillo boxes and Campbell’s soup cans. In the 1980s Richard Prince rephotographed magazine ads for Marlboro cigarettes, enlarged the pictures and exhibited them as his own. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13fine.html
But what happens when the tables are turned? In recent years a number of advertising campaigns have seemed to draw their inspiration directly from high-profile works of contemporary art. And the artists who believe their images and ideas have been appropriated are not happy about it. a
NYT:The Swiss artists Peter Fischli and David Weiss have turned down numerous requests from ad agencies interested in licensing their award-winning 30-minute short film, “Der Lauf der Dinge” (“The Way Things Go”). Produced in 1987, it follows a Rube Goldberg-style chain reaction in which everyday objects like string, balloons, buckets and tires are propelled by means of fire, pouring liquids and gravity….
…Yet in April 2003 Honda ran a two-minute television commercial, “Cog,” in which various parts of a car — tires, seats, windshield wipers — form a dominolike chain reaction that culminates when an Accord rolls down a ramp as a voice-over (read by Garrison Keillor) intones, “Isn’t it great when things just work?”…
…At the time Mr. Fischli told Creative Review magazine: “We’ve been getting a lot of mail saying, ‘Oh, you’ve sold the idea to Honda.’ We don’t want people to think this. We made ‘Der Lauf der Dinge’ for consumption as art.” Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/arts/design/13fine.html?pagewanted=2
Wearing first came to prominence as an artist in December 1992 with a series of photographs that appeared in The Face magazine. She asked random members of the public to write down whatever they wanted on a sign, and she photographed them holding that sign. The series, called Signs that say what you want them to say and not signs that say what someone else wants you to say, seemed closer to documentary photography than to art, as has a great deal of her work since (that was part of the reason she chose to show them first in a magazine rather than a gallery ). But they contained a subtlety, a quietly surreal intensity that undermined anything straightforward you could think to say about them.
One of the most famous images from that series showed a young businessman in a suit holding a sign saying “I’M DESPERATE”. The impact it had was like clutching a livewire, and it continues to shock today. But who knows what the man was really thinking? “I think he was very serious,” says Wearing when I ask. “He wanted to go away and think about it, but I said if you do that it will ruin it. He certainly wasn’t joking, and I don’t think he was being ironic either. But I’ve no idea what the context for that was.” That, surely, was part of the punch. “I think that’s really important,” Wearing insists. “If you ever make anything too literal you might as well forget it. It loses everything. It loses the mystery which is probably the most alluring factor – more so than what you know.”…
So simple yet effective was the idea that it was taken up by an ad agency in a campaign for Volkswagen cars. Here, of course, the idea lost all its animating ambiguity and interest. Wearing was appalled and threatened to sue, but the risk was too great: if she lost (and the law is deliberately loose here, in part to allow artists themselves the freedom to pinch and quote freely) the costs could be huge. Instead, she has been getting on with it. Read More:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/gillian-wearing-the-art-of-the-matter-583706.html