Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: York in 2008.16 In both cases the original photographers claimed authorship and its attendant rights of compensation; in effect, the taking of their images without compensation was deemed to be a form of spoliation.17 In both cases, the appropriators maintained that rights of authorship did not pertain because their source material was not original or creative; it was part of a shared mass cultural environment, and as such collective property.Koons called Rogers' photograph "a cupcake," i.e., an object indistinguishable from other mass-produced objects of its category, a piece of cultural "junk" that became art only when transformed by the artist's (Koons') idea.18 Richard Prince claimed that the photographs by Patrick Cariou were "raw material," "mere compilations of facts ... arranged with minimum creativity."19 Sherrie Levine -who also faced legal challenges and no longer exhibits the Evans and Weston rephotographs as her own -appropriated the work of Roland Barthes to assert 16 Randy Kennedy, "Apropos Appropriation.
Source: Essays in medieval studies
Author: Dale Kinney
Institution: Bryn Mawr College
Language: English
Topic: Classical Antiquity Studies
Subfield: Anthropology
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W2056812896