Appropriation

Starting with the first definition of the act of appropriation, “to take something that does not belong to us,” the author compares the approach of appropriation artists (David Krippendorff, Sherrie Levine, Richard Prince, and others) with that of visual artists accused of cultural appropriation (Sam Durant, Dominic Gagnon, Dana Schutz, and others). The aim is to show that although the act seems similar on both sides, the motivations and consequences are diametrically opposed. One side tries to reveal relations of power, while the other tries to deny them.
[Translated from the French by Oana Avasilichioaei]

Appropriation is defined here as the praxis that combines knowledge involved in making a work of art, activating its ideas, and engaging with the reactions they trigger. In Cannibal Culture, Deborah Root outlines the Western tendency to commodify difference in Other cultures, an idea that is enhanced through Rimbaud’s project to be absolutely modern and through fetishized innovation in today’s immaterial economy and art markets. In conjunction with plans of disruption, innovation expands corporate profits by privatizing public services and monetizing previously free amenities. As new creations benefit from limited copyright protection, entertainment firms such as Disney continually re-launch their titles so that their content never enters the public domain. Which begs the question: where exactly is culture?

In this article, the author considers the intersections of artificial intelligence and art production by looking at works by AICAN (Ahmed Elgammal), Obvious (Hugo Caselles-Dupré, Pierre Fautrel, and Gauthier Vernier), Mario Klingemann, and Adam Basanta. The author examines the impact of AI on conventional art world concepts of artist attribution, ownership, and creativity, while questioning whether algorithms may one day become so advanced that machine artists could replace human artists altogether.

Through the example of Adelita Husni-Bey’s White Paper series, the author approaches appropriation as an art-historical concept that cannot be dissociated from its economic and political backgrounds with regard to property. Given its direct impact upon the meaning of property, it is fruitful to relate appropriation to and distinguish it from the concept of expropriation. This concept may also serve an art-historical purpose when it comes to works such as White Paper, in the sense that questions of property are as relevant as, or even more important than, traditional questions concerning authorship and the institutional framework of art.

Presented in the exhibition The Radical Imaginary: The Social Contract at Centre VOX in Montreal, Jill Magid’s The Proposal overturns the usual discourse on appropriation by taking a non-transgressive approach. By following extremely restrictive copyright laws to the letter, the artist reveals the breaches and abuses authorized by the law. This radical subjection to excessive authority places the economic interests of copyright owners above patrimonial needs and exposes the blind spot of arts law: the survival of artworks in the cultural landscape.
[Translated from the French by Louise Ashcroft]

Why organize a discussion on artistic appropriation when everyone is talking about cultural appropriation? Isn’t the goal of artistic appropriation ultimately to justify cultural appropriation? I think it’s important to respond to these questions briefly, and, in the process, explain why we’re having this panel. Artistic appropriation is a sort of collateral victim of debates on cultural appropriation. That’s a pity, because the technique of appropriation in art, or what is also known as “appropriationism,” permeates all of modern and contemporary art and is central to understanding today’s art practices. What is particularly interesting is that the artists who use appropriation embrace the subversive aspect of their gesture. They appropriate something that doesn’t belong to them — generally an image made by another artist, advertising creative, or designer — and assume the consequences, often legal, of this violent act. Yet, when it comes to artists who are accused of cultural appropriation, the violent aspect of their gesture is totally denied. I find this contrast significant, and I’d like to launch the debate with this idea: on the one hand, appropriation artists who take responsibility for their transgressive gestures and, on the other hand, artists who adopt an ethical stance by presenting themselves as allies of the cultures that they highlight, even when members of these minority cultures contradict them.
[Translated from the French by Käthe Roth]

Afro-Caribbean visual artist Eddy Firmin discusses cultural appropriation not as an issue that is specific to our times, but as the questioning of a discursive regime of Western art—the appropriationist regime. At the same time, he posits the notion of the cultural imperative in order to underline the intimate rationale supporting the dispossession of local aesthetic resources of Southern artists. This notion forms an antagonistic pair with the appropriationist regime, which relies on the logic of extraction and appropriation of aesthetic resources from around the world.
[Translated from the French by Oana Avasilichioaei]

This essay, which falls within the scope of critical Indigenous and intersectional studies, is in continuity with postcolonial and feminist reflections. The author reflects on the movement denouncing the creative process that resulted in the play Kanata by Robert Lepage and Ariane Mnouchkine. She reminds us that Indigenous peoples have shared and exchanged food, ideas, dances, rituals, art objects, and other things for thousands of years. These exchanges have been inspired by core values of reciprocity upheld by numerous Indigenous nations. Today, Indigenous peoples are reaffirming these dynamics using their own language as an act of sovereignty and of resistance to concepts arising from “Western” epistemologies but also present in art. In the context of femicide in Canada, the author argues that the resurgence of (re)appropriation in the imaginary territories of the performing arts is part of a movement reaffirming the presence of Indigenous women, their bodies, and their voices in Canada.
[Translated from the French by Louise Ashcroft]