To Begin With...
...I'm not referring to plagiarism, copyright violation, or anything else that implies anything used illegally or without permission. This is simply about adding papers, images, stamps, ephemera, stickers, tapes, rub-ons, collage images, and anything else that could fall into the category of "sold for the purpose of making art".
Here and there you pick up conversations about the pros and cons about the use of things in artwork that were not made expressly by the artist. At one end, there's the group that would always forbid anything not made by the artist, except maybe the paper and the crayon. At the other extreme, there's the (thankfully small) group of people who buy a stamp, ink it, stamp it, and say "Look what I made".
In my opinion, the first group lacks imagination and needs to "get real"! After all, would they invalidate one of Lidia's fabulous and famous spaghetti sauce recipes because the the tomatoes were tinned instead of hand-pressed fresh? Possibly, but I would hope not. And the latter--well, maybe if you're 5, but any older than that and you'd better just say "Look what I stamped"!
There is a thin line that runs through the middle of this however, and assuming that copyright issues are not a factor, there is also some legitimate concern over what you should call your own, and what ethically should be credited to others, even though you assembled it. If you're interested in my thoughts on this, click HERE to continue reading...
If you got here from the blog post, this is where you will begin. . .
Fortunately this is something I've thought about long and hard for many years. And also fortunately, I was required to attend an art-ethics forum in college, so I have that opinion to draw from as well. And I do have an opinion of my own, and it's rooted in two things: intent, and dialog.
Intent...
Are you trying to do something that is unique to yourself? Are you trying to make something with a completely different look and/or meaning from the materials used? If so, then the items you use are being used as tools, and there is no question that the art you make with it (them) is your own. When the intent is clear, the answer is clear. But what happens when you're not entirely sure, or when most of what you use is altered, but one or two things aren't?
In my collage, particularly in my art journals and altered books, I may include an image or two, very often a sticker or a cut-out, that is simply placed, but not altered. These things were sold to be used, so there is absolutely no legal problem here. But ethically, can I call it "my" art? I know I can, simply because I'm sure of my intent. When I use a "Hello Kitty" sticker on a journal page, the intent is to add a her as the most appropriate collage item, in my opinion, for the piece. I'm not adding her because she's "Hello Kitty" the "star" (don't laugh, I know she's fictional), but because she's "Hello Kitty" the item with the look and the feel of what I want to convey. That's clear. And I'm not telling people that I made her, I'm telling them that I made the piece that she's in. No ethical problems here, or with anything that I'm interested in doing, because that's the way I like to do things. But what if I wanted to do a tribute to "Hello Kitty" as an altered book? It would certainly be OK legally, the items are sold to be used. But could I ethically call it "my artwork"?
What I learned in School...
I had the extreme good fortune to have gone to Arizona State University at a time when the art department offered a seminar on ethics. This 8 week forum covered a wide range of gray areas and we got to hear from professors of ethics, some famous commercial and fine artists, and the lawyers that represent them. The "Hello Kitty" book came up as an example. But it was not "Hello Kitty", it was Campbell's soup that we talked about. Andy Warhol was hot, and we did a lot of talking about the use and misuse of subject matter, using his Campbell's Soup Can as an example. To distill my 8-weeks into a paragraph or two, here's the soup scoop:
1. For the purpose of this discussion, don't concern yourself with the opinions of others, including art critics, the press, and your best friend. Legal and ethical issues have answers in their own right, regardless of any particular individual's take on morality. Individuals have a right to their own, unique, moral opinions, right or wrong, but from a legal and ethical standpoint, the answer may or may not differ with what any specific individual might think. What we are concerned with is not whether Aunt Agatha thinks her pastor would agree with that, or whether Mary Smith thinks it's "fair". We're using ethics as a system, not in the specific.
2. In light of this, it's all about intent. Once it's determined that there are no legal issues, such as copyright infringement, then ethics simply boils down to one thing. Was Andy Warhol trying to re-create a can of Campbell's Soup? Or was it the subject of his painting? Obviously, it wasn't the soup can itself, it was his subject. A realistically represented still-life. Or semi-realistic, if you see it from my eyes.
But the subject at hand is really collage. We're not talking about stamping an image for the sake of seeing the image, all by itself, on a piece of paper, or in a frame. We're talking about using a few things, or a lot of things, all together in one piece of artwork. And this forum had a definite ethical opinion about collage, as well--It's valid!
From an ethical point of view, if you take an image, think it would look better with a stamp on it in the upper right hand corner, and maybe a piece of lace at the bottom to the left, the end result is your art. You are the artist. It's your concept, and it's a new creation, even though it was made from something old. And, further, even if you were the artist of the image you chose, and even if the stamp was one you hand carved, or created, and even if you had also made the lace from fibers you dyed and spun--the artwork would be no more your creation, than if all the things you used were made by another person! That was the opinion of the members of the forum.
Is this "fair"? I have no idea what to tell Mary Smith, because fair is subjective. Is it morally right? Once again, Aunt Agatha is on her own to gossip all over the place if she wishes, and even stir-up a few critics and the staff at the New York Times, because whether or not it is morally correct is subjective. But objectively, as long as you're not out there telling people that you were the artist who made "Hello Kitty", then go ahead an tell them that you were the artist/author of the book you altered using a thousand or so of her images.
Another Really Important Word About Intent...
I'm assuming here that the altered book with tons of "Hello Kitty" images is not something that you put together from a kit, or assembled by purchasing images suggested by someone else and using directions other than your own muse. I'm assuming that you thought it up, decided on the images prompted only by your own ideas of what works where, and that you did not follow a template or recipe, other than maybe a subject prompt or a commission to make something original along the lines of a specified theme. There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with using templates and recipes. I use them all the time. But there's a big ethical difference in calling the resulting piece "your artwork", as opposed to calling it "the piece you made using Jane Doe's template", or Jane's list of materials. When you use one of Emeril's recipes, it's the dinner you made, but the recipe was his creation. You have merely duplicated it, or tweaked it a bit. Further, I must say again, that I'm also assuming that the copyright issues are non-issues. It's NEVER your work if the law says it isn't.
Where Does Dialog Come In To This?...
There is such a thing, I'm sure you're aware, as "fan art". Art created using parts of someone else's creations (LEGALLY) as components of your work, often, but not always, as a tribute. Sampling in music sometimes falls into the category of "fan art". It is almost always an component of collage, whether the collage artist is conscious of this or not. When I use a "Hello Kitty" sticker, I use it because I like it. When you use a stamp manufactured by Hero Arts, you use it because you like it. I don't use the stickers as a tribute to Sanrio (the makers of Hello Kitty), and you probably don't use your stamp as a tribute to Hero Arts, or to the artist who designed it. But we both, probably, credit these entities when appropriate. And in the case of a "Hello Kitty" sticker, which was sold expressly for the purpose of being stuck onto something else, unless I've altered her so substantially that she is no longer recognizable, I probably don't need to tell people who she is. But I will do it anyway, just to be "fair" (my chosen morals, not ethically necessary except when legally required).
So beyond the simple answers of, "I like it", and "because I can't/won't/don't want to draw/paint/otherwise make it myself", why do we do this? Why do we use other people's items and images? Aren't you curious? We do it to converse. It is an artistic dialog.
I tell you who I am by using things I like, or arranging things I don't like in such a way that you get my meaning. I am communicating. But if in my process, I am using something that someone else made, then in addition, I am answering that person's message to me.
Sanrio and it's Hello Kitty artist, initiated--no, invited--me into conversation, by placing those stickers for sale. I said my first "yes" when I bought them, and my second "yes" when I used them. Now I have opened the dialog to others by using the image in my collage. Now it is more than a dialog. It is a conversation. You look at it and form an opinion. Your response, even if you keep it to yourself, is part of that conversation. Why do we use these images in our collage? We do this to communicate!
Art, particularly collage, is a form of communication. When what you've made says something about you, about your tastes, about your style, about your mood, etc., it is your art in a very different way from the painting on the wall that reflects your taste simply because you chose to display it, but was painted by someone else. Another artist's painting on your wall reflects something of your tastes. The piece you made, shares a part of yourself. You can disclaim the first and, it would be true. To disclaim the second, you would have to lie. There is a dialog present between artist and canvas. It is never more present than in collage, where it expands to become a conversation with and about everyone else who had a stake in creating it's components. And I can think of no other form of art where the conversation is richer, or louder.
Comments