FINAL ESSAY

What effects do issues surrounding authorship and appropriation have on graphic design?

Any form of graphic design or art format is going to be judged and critiqued by its reader in response to both the content and the author. An early interpretation of the ‘author’ simply denotes to ‘the person who originates or gives existence to anything’ by means of all the forms of communication existing writers, designers, photographers, and illustrators. ‘Authorship’ can be seen as ‘the state or fact of being the writer of a book, article, or document or the creator of a work of art’. This essay will shed light on how authorship is viewed in graphic design and how that has affected the way design is seen and produced. Appropriation art goes hand in hand with authorship; this essay explores how the two aspects relate to each other. The Tate defines appropriation as ‘Appropriation in art and art history refers to the practice of artists using pre-existing objects or images in their art with little transformation of the original’. Whilst explaining and drawing upon appropriation, writers such as Barthes and Foucault to look at different opinions on the subject of authorship. 

Authorship is generally a very modern problem; it has a sense of importance to it, which is the reason it became such a big obsession during the 20th century.  M.Rock (₁₉₉₆) says ‘the question of how designers become authors is a difficult one… exactly who qualifies and what authored design might look like’ authorship and what creates it is a tough concept to pinpoint because it is subjective to many people. Foucault (₁₉₆₉) stated that the concept of the ‘author’ is socially established. He drew attention to the fact that a culture where a conversation would be passed around without stating the author is a culture in which it did not matter who was speaking it only mattered about the conversation, which in this case would be art. However, Barthes (₁₉₆₇) went further by announcing the ‘death of the author’. Barthes believes that the author is not really the author, but is somewhat the ‘scripture’ that puts together pre-existing texts and concepts that they have become aware of. Barthes argues that everything already has meaning, which is derived from earlier cultures.

W.K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley (₁₉₄₆), in ‘The Intentional Fallacy’, agrees with Barthes when he argues that everything has meaning. Alongside this, they attribute the happenings within the work, and their meanings, to that of the speaker or reader and not that of the author, which is agreed by S. Hall from another perspective. It is said that a writer or artist’s intentions cannot be the standard or criterion to judge the merit of the work at hand. They believe that we look at art to see how it relates to our lives at that given time. For example, if we see a piece of design once and then again twenty years later, the design work is still the exact same, however the way we perceive or judge it could be completely different. It is stated by Elizabeth Robins Pennell, in Nineteenth-Century Pioneer of Modern Art Criticism (₂₀₁₅) that “a work belongs to neither the artist or the critic, but instead, to the public” from this they were trying to put forward the idea that the work of art offers meaning to a wide spectrum of readers, all who interpret it differently. Showing that the authorship belongs to the public because if you are at a gallery you can only interpret what you can see, knowing that you can not ask the artist who created it about their intentions to do with that piece of design you are viewing.

In relation to a graphic designer, ownership, and authority are granted to them at the expense of a viewer thus meaning that designers were heading more toward a position where it was easier for them to state some level of authorship to their work. It is not always the case that the name attached to the piece of work is the sole designer of that piece; the most design is created in a collaborative setting. A clear example of this would be the client-designer relationship or the creation of the work in a design studio. However, the name attached to the piece of work, for example, Andy Warhol is often there to direct other creative people to work in the style that he sets out for them. This is where the question of authorship can be seen as blurred. However it is not uncommon of all art throughout its history to be directed. Andy Warhol is the author of his work due to the fact that he is conceiving the concept, layout and colour of the piece, regardless of whether or not he actually produced the piece. Thus demonstrating that authorship is not directly linked to production of the piece.

 What makes the work of a designer really theirs? In the 21st century, it is questioned whether any design can be truly original, as some part of a design, even if it is small, it has probably been based on something pre-existing, most likely without the designer realising. Aware of this how, is a designer to know when to claim authorship over their work if it is always being questioned about the true originality of where their ideas and designs came from. This is different to appropriation and can be seen as intertextuality. Some of the most recent upcoming and famous designers are basing their designs and art on reproducing existing art. The main issue with this, however, is when does this remaking of art turn into forgery and where is the line drawn? This can be seen as appropriation in art.

Appropriation is not a method that has just come around; it has been a permitted statement for over a century. Authorship and appropriation are two aspects that have continually been related to each other.  MoMA defined appropriation as the ‘international borrowing, copying and alteration of pre-existing images and objects’. The 1960’s was when appropriation artists plainly designed copies of work by other artists with very small amounts of manipulation or modification. Appropriation became a more well-known and common strategy in the 1980’s when it was mentioned in relation to artists such as Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol. This was the period where a lot of iconic pieces of art were created as these artists appropriated images from pop culture and commercial art, which was prominent in the general publics eyes thus giving them more popularity. The work of these appropriation artists can be seen to back up Barthes’ initial idea of the ‘death of the author’ due to the fact that the artists are extracting pieces of previous work, if not the majority of it, which gives the impression that the original artist is not needed which can also been seen as intertextuality.

It is very rare that appropriation art is about disrespecting or taking the authorship of another designer. It is also not to be seen as an indication of laziness. Elaine Sturtevant could be regarded to be the earliest applier of appropriation art, her first and foremost focus was to use the exact techniques that the artists she was appropriating from had used. It has been said that in one case, Warhol lent his screens to Sturtevant so that she could reproduce her copies of his work on silkscreens. Most artists who appropriate use this technique on the grounds of their interest for the previous artists’ work, or how existing pieces of work or images can be manipulated or used to create new and exciting work. However this is not the case for Sturtevant, she took appropriation art to a new, drastic measure where she questioned the concept of authorship. To do so she paints an accurate copy of an artist's work then goes on to declare ownership, whilst fully admitting to everyone that she knows it is an exact copy. In the 60’s she said she allowed herself one ‘mistake’ so that she could differentiate between her piece and the original piece. This sort of appropriation relates back to what W.K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley both wrote about in ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ where they say that art buries its creator in order to speak its own meaning to the reader or creator. The appropriation that Sturtevant does relates to this because it is asking what is qualified to be treated as art is made by others and not herself, however, her work is an exact replica so why not treat it the same and bury the creator.

 Sherrie Levine is another appropriation artists from the late 1970’s, who was included in a group of conceptual artists that were known as the ‘Pictures generation’. She used photography to examine visual representation through the use of appropriation techniques. Instead of exploring new concepts and ideas for a photograph, Levine decided to re-photograph reproductions of images by photographers such as Edward Weston and Walker Evans. Levine’s appropriation of Evans’ work became a prominent feature of postmodernism, it was not appreciated by all but was recognised by many. Her photographs were almost identical to the originals, which is why there was such controversy about them. In none of her photographs was there any attempt to misguide the viewer into thinking it was all Levine, the name of the original artist is often acknowledged within the title of the work which is very interesting. Relating this back to production, Levine appropriated the concept, layout and everything to do with the original image showing that she hence should not be the author even though she produced a different image. Due to the fact that she had no new concepts that contributed towards her photograph. 

 The initial image of what we know an artist or designer to be is someone who created a piece of work. Now when we look at an appropriation artist or designer we start to question their authorship due to the fact that aspects of their work are taken from previously existing artwork. One difference between an appropriation artist and the original artist is the meaning behind the work. As the reader of a piece of work you ask questions to do with what the artists meaning behind it would be and that is the intention of most artists. However Barthes says in ‘The Death of the Author’ that if the reader were to view the work through the eyes of the creator they would not benefit from this piece of work as when you associate the creator with that work then you are then trying to guess what the creator meant and not just looking at the piece of work. By including other aspects of peoples work in their work, appropriation artists, they withhold the right to have their own meaning attach to their work.

Direct appropriation is not particularly common in a lot of commercial contexts because in this sense it is known much more for ownership and the profit that comes from the piece whereas in graphic design a lot of the work can be known for debate and experimentation showing that appropriation artists can have authorship over their work because there are experimenting with other aspects to include into the original work. However you could also could consider an expanded definition of appropriation that references parody and pastiche as appropriation for stylistic rather than direct appropriation. Parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect or mockery. Pastiche is much more about the celebration of an artist’s work that is being imitated. According to Jameson, pastiche lacks the ulterior motive of parody, which is to inspire laughter in the reader. Weather or not this is a good argument it is unclear. In relation to graphic design Barnbrook is a perfect example for both parody and pastiche, there are different elements in his work that can reflect on both these terms. A celebratory piece of appropriation work Barnbrook has done is The Next Day (figure 2), which was a pastiche of Bowies album sleeve for his 1977 record Heroes. The cover was a huge success through the simplicity of the minimalistic design, which won the hearts of all Bowie’s fans. The white box turned into a campaign and had a huge interaction on social media, which was powerful as it was a new way to celebrate Bowie through promoting his album. A clear representation of parody in his work would be his piece appropriating Kim Jong II (figure 1) where he is mocking him and features Kim as the Colonel in this take on the KFC logo. Barnbrook clearly feels some resentment towards the North Korean government. The sarcastic manner in which Barnbrook works can cause controversy.

The issues I have been looking at throughout this essay will always be most exaggerated in fine art contexts because this is where they are debated freely, however how they manifest in everyday contexts will be more attenuated. People like Jamie Reid who is an English artist and anarchist who uses a collaging technique featuring cut outs from newspapers. In an interview that was played at a Reid exhibition he said ‘the challenge to the modern artist is not to create, but to use what has already been created… you have to widen your field of awareness so you can see what is not being done and what could be done with these creations’. In this sense Reid is suggesting that appropriation is good if you are going to create something that is better with the current material. This method questions the state of authorship as Reid is adapting material he finds to create a piece that has a whole different meaning. The authorship is given to Reid as he has a style that is recognisable and is not using appropriation that just copies the previous work. Reid’s work has strong connections to parody as he uses humor to catch the attention of the viewers.

In relation to design today there are clear examples of appropriation that have been taken further and created into another meaning for both the artist and the viewers. An example I love of this is Jonathan Barnbrook’s appropriation of David Bowie: The Next Day. He appropriated a previous Bowie cover and created it into a whole different meaning for viewers. Barnbrook created a piece of fantastic work that was quickly the most talked about and loved album cover design, he simply produced a response to the world around him today in a way that allows Bowie to live on in a conceptual way. As Bowie is such a well known artist there was no need for his face to be shown here, the artwork is very stripped back and has a very bold aesthetic. The appropriation of this piece was vital towards the end product, which shows that in some cases of design appropriation enhances the concept and takes the original piece further into a deeper meaning.  Barnbrook’s appropriation still leads him to have authorship over his work because he is including new concepts that are related to the original but taking the piece further. 

Authorship can be seen in a different light to different people, it is extremely subjective which makes it so hard to define and outline the rules to it. In many cases the viewer holds more responsibility and power than the author due to the complexity of the different experiences the author or creator puts into their work being unseen by the viewer, they see the work with a fresh mind and thus why authorship can be seen as unimportant. Whilst appropriation artists have been regularly seen as undermining the concept of artistic authorship they do succeed in achieving something different. Because they decline the request of originality the appropriation artists in graphic design are showing that originality for them is somewhat unnecessary and expendable.

FIG1

FIG2

References / Bibliography

Eyemagazine.com. (2017). Eye Magazine | Feature | The designer as author. [Online] Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/the-designer-as-author [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017].

Eyemagazine.com. (2017). Eye Magazine | Opinion | Portrait of the designer as author. [Online] Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/opinion/article/portrait-of-the-designer-as-author [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017].

Eyemagazine.com. (2017). Eye Magazine | Review | Understanding the P-word. [Online] Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/review/article/understanding-the-p-word [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

Faculty.smu.edu. (2017). THE INTENTIONAL FALLACY. [Online] Available at: https://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/fallacy.htm [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017].

It’s Nice That. (2017). A mind full of filthy ideas and creative brilliance: we visit Malika Favre. [Online] Available at: http://www.itsnicethat.com/features/malika-favre-interview [Accessed 17 Nov. 2017].

It’s Nice That. (2017). Artist Paul Stephenson poses contentious questions of authorship with After Warhol series. [Online] Available at: https://www.itsnicethat.com/news/paul-stephenson-after-warhol-prints-art-261017 [Accessed 30 Sep. 2017].

Michel Foucault what is an author. (2017. [Online] Available at: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/624849/mod_resource/content/1/a840_1_michel_foucault.pdf [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017].

Rock, M. (1996). The designer as author.

Tbook.constantvzw.org. (2017).  [Online] Available at: http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf [Accessed 8 Oct. 2017].

The Interaction Design Foundation. (2017). Appropriation and Design: A Tale of Two Concepts. [Online] Available at: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/appropriation-and-design-a-tale-of-two-concepts [Accessed 17 Nov. 2017].

Widewalls. (2017). Authorship in Art - The Victim of Appropriation. [Online] Available at: https://www.widewalls.ch/authorship-in-art/ [Accessed 17 Nov. 2017].

Moma.org. (2017). MoMA | Appropriation. [Online] Available at: https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/pop-art/appropriation [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017].

Lee, P. (1965). Sturtevant.

Leeuwen, R. and &rarr, V. (2017). Sherrie Levine: Re-photographed Photographs of Reproductions of Photographs. [Online] Fans in a Flashbulb. Available at: https://fansinaflashbulb.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/sherrie-levine-re-photographed-photographs-of-reproductions-of-photographs/ [Accessed 4 Dec. 2017].

Jones, k. (2015). Elizabeth robins Pennell, nineteenth-century pioneer of modern art criticism. [s.l.]: Routledge