Haven’t written much about art, lately, as I’ve had my ostrich headphones on too much, maybe. But, before I head out to look at some art, here’s what I’m thinking about right now.
One of my favourite Chicago residents posted this link on her blog, and I’m stealing it, or appropriating it, to buzzword as it were.
Last semester, one of my classmates (see emetic medic link to the right) made a few portfolio pieces using Marlboro man images coupled with perfume ads. So, knowing of Richard Prince’s appropriation of the Marlboro man image (taken by Jim Krantz, or some other togue-out-of-cheek *serious* photographer), and appropriating this icon, rather than some other manly icon (Tony the Tiger, Captain Morgan, one of those clean shaven cologne models, I don’t know), does that make the piece about the original intention (selling cigarettes) or the appropriated intention (selling Advertising as Art, among many arguable others) or something completely different? Can we disregard the past uses of images, or do we rest on past laurels?
When we get into that kind of tunnel vision reflection on a copy of a copy of a copy, how much credit do we give others to *get* it, or is art just for art students?
I wonder if Orson knew we would get to this.