The Art of the Steal

features

The ART
of the STEAL

By Lori Capullo

THERE’S A THIN LINE — AND MUCH DEBATE — BETWEEN ARTISTIC APPROPRIATION AND INSPIRATION. WHO DETERMINES WHICH IS THE CASE?

The debate surrounding the line between inspiration and appropriation is a complex one in the art world. On one hand, artists often draw inspiration from past works to create something new and innovative. Conversely, the practice can flirt with cases of blatantly copying, or commercial imitation, raising ethical concerns.

One example is Richard Prince’s “Untitled (Cowboy)” series. Prince’s pictures were originally sourced from a series of Marlboro ads showcasing cowboys in rugged landscapes that were shot by a relatively unknown photographer named Norm Clasen. While Prince argued that his work was a commentary on consumerism and the Western ideal, critics accused him of appropriating the original photographs without adding any significant creative elements.

Earlier this year, professional photographer Donald Graham won the right to proceed with lawsuits against Prince for capturing screenshots of an Instagram post of one of Graham’s 1998 photos, creating a large-scale inkjet-oncanvas
print of it as part of Prince’s “New Portraits” series that included Prince’s comments on the post and claiming the work as his own because his comments were included on his version.

The judge didn’t agree that he had done enough to make it original. In September, the case took a turn when the court dismissed Graham’s lawsuit, which sought to share in as-yet unrealized profits from the sale of Prince’s work from Gagosian Gallery. The judges’ varying opinions in themselves are arguably evidence of the subjective nature of this debate. Since 2014, Prince has reportedly been the subject of four other lawsuits pertaining to the “New Portraits” series by various photographers, none of which has
been successful.

GIRL WITH A TEAR, Lichtenstein

“Many artists claim that being inspired by another’s work is a natural part of the creative process.”

Roy Lichtenstein

Grab and Go

Pop art pioneer Roy Lichtenstein has always been open about the fact that his paintings were based on comic strips. But some of those whose comic strips he used as “inspiration” felt it wasn’t acceptable. “It’s called stealing,” 96-year-old comic strip artist Hy Eisman said in a recent documentary called WHAAM! BLAM! Roy Lichtenstein and the Art of Appropriation. “I worked like a dog on this stupid page and this guy has $20 million to show for it.”

Many artists claim that being inspired by another’s work is a natural part of the creative process. The case has been made by some that it’s virtually impossible to create something entirely original and that art builds upon what came before. Take Andy Warhol, for example, who was known for appropriating pop culture imagery—such as Campbell’s Soup cans—and transforming them into iconic works of art. He justified his approach by explaining that he was simply reflecting the mass-produced nature of society.

There’s no doubt that the line between being inspired by and appropriating an artist’s work is a contentious issue. While some are of the opinion that inspiration and even appropriation are natural aspects of the creative process, others strongly believe there should be clear boundaries that protect artists’ intellectual property.

So, does the whole issue boil down to it being a matter of one artist’s perspective against the other’s word? The discussion has been going on for ages, and artists themselves have chimed in from both points of view. “Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal,” said Pablo Picasso. But in the words of novelist Herman Melville, “It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”

features