Appropriation: Exploring the Evolution of Appropriation with a Critique of Originality in Pop Art and Its Progression to Contemporary Art
Fine Art (Hons)
Word count: 6962
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) degree in Fine Art.
Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art and Design
University of Dundee 2025
Abstract
This dissertation explores the critique of appropriation in art, focusing on the transition from Pop Art to contemporary art. By analysing the works of artists such as Andy Warhol to Sherrie Levine, it aims to examine the fine line between originality and the act of borrowing from other artists, addressing whether appropriation is a legitimate artistic tool that adds new meaning and context or simply a form of copying without innovation.
While appropriation has often been criticised as theft, with artists accused of being unoriginal or copying, it is also argued to be a powerful tool that can enhance creativity and open new interpretations. The discussion examines how appropriation has been used effectively despite the critiques surrounding it.
The first chapter explores the emergence of image appropriation, beginning with Picasso’s cubist collages and extending to the works of Duchamp and Warhol. Duchamp's Readymades and Warhol's Brillo Box are analysed to illustrate how these artists used appropriation to question the nature of art and its relationship to consumer culture. By blurring the lines between high art and everyday items, their works challenge traditional concepts of originality and authorship. These discussions are framed through Walter Benjamin's theories on mechanical reproduction and the loss of "aura," providing a theoretical basis for understanding appropriation in art.
Building on this foundation, the second chapter focuses on continuing appropriation in contemporary art, particularly emphasising artists like Sherrie Levine. Levine’s work, such as After Walker Evans and Fountain (Buddha), demonstrates how historical artworks are reinterpreted and critiqued to challenge male dominance in the art world and question the concept of originality. This chapter integrates theoretical perspectives from Plato’s mimesis to Baudrillard’s simulacrum, exploring how these ideas inform contemporary appropriation practices. It also situates appropriation within the broader context of postmodernism, analysing its role in critiquing consumer culture and media saturation.
1.1
1.2
1.4
List of Illustrations
Fig 1. Pablo Picasso, (1912), Still Life with Chair Caning, (29 x 37 cm), oil and oilcloth on canvas framed with rope…………………………………..8
Fig 2. Marcel Duchamp, (1917), Fountain, (30.5 × 38.1 × 45.7 cm), Porcelain Urinal……………………………………………………9
Fig 3. Andy Warhol, (1964), Brillo Box, (43.3 cm x 43.2 cm x 36.5 cm), Polyvinyl Acetate and Silkscreen Ink on Wood…………...12
Fig 4a Sherrie Levine, (1981), After Walker Evans, (25.4 × 20.3 cm), Photography………………………………………………………………20
Fig 4b Walker Evans, (1936), Alabama Tenant Farmer's Wife, (20.9 x 14.4 cm), Photography……………………………………………………………….20
Fig 5a. Marcel Duchamp, (1917), Fountain, (30.5 × 38.1 × 45.7 cm), Porcelain Urinal………………………………………………………………………………24
Fig 5b. Sherrie Levine, (1996), Fountain(Buddha), (30.5 cm x 43.2 cm x 40.6 cm), Bronze Sculpture…………………………………………...24
Fig 5c Irene Buchan, (2024), Pink Urinals, (standard urinal), Soap and Expanding Foam………………………………………………..24
Introduction
The concept of appropriation is rooted in the Latin word appropriacioun (1393), meaning the act of taking possession of something that belongs to someone else Today, the term is commonly used in legal contexts to address ownership and question theft or reproduction, and in the art world, it is used to describe the reinvention or repurposing of existing works. Appropriation art exemplifies a broader modernist practice of questioning the nature of art, raising critical issues about originality, authenticity, and ownership.
To effectively appropriate work, artists must engage with history, revisiting past moments to draw inspiration, often reviving elements once dismissed as trends or fads. This retrospective approach passes through not only the art world but also other areas of culture, such as fashion, where trends from previous decades, like those of the 1970s and 1980s, have resurged in popularity 80s style flares and extravagant pop art, currently seen on platforms such as TikTok, gain and lose popularity. As Wiley (2016) observed,
“At its best, what art does is, it points to who we as human beings are and what we as human beings value” (Wiley, 2016, pg 1).
Art can, therefore, become a reflection of our personal tastes, values, and passions, whether through the infusion of style or the revisitation of significant historical moments.
The conflict between originality and appropriation dates to the mid-twentieth century when the development of pop art had a significant impact on contemporary art. Artists such as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein used commercial imagery and mass media to challenge traditional conceptions of authorship, forever changing the dialogue around creativity. In today’s digital era, where images are rapidly and widely spread, the complexities surrounding art production, copyright, and ownership have only grown. Artists today walk a fine line between inspiration and imitation, raising important questions about artistic integrity and cultural responsibility.
This dissertation briefly examines the history and impact of appropriation in contemporary art. It will then focus on how the reuse of imagery influences the perception of original works. By analysing the works of artists such as Warhol and Levine, I will explore the evolution of appropriation from the pop art movement to modern-day practices. I will assess
how critiques of originality have evolved and evaluate the relevance of these debates in contemporary art. I will also examine the arguments that appropriation continues to provoke, considering whether this represents a positive movement for the future of artistic practice.
Chapter 1
1.1 From Picasso to Duchamp: The Early Foundations of Artistic Appropriation
The use of appropriation appeared in 1912 in Cubist collages, where everyday objects, such as bits of newspaper, were incorporated into artworks to represent themselves. Pablo Picasso played a significant role during this period, with his experiments shaping the global perception of collage (Arbex, 2023). His work was considered revolutionary due to his unconventional methods.
Using media images was common in both the Cubist and Dada movements, where images were torn and arranged on canvas or paper, giving them new meanings and shifting the focus within the artwork. Before using photography, collage began by combining sketches or found images. Georges Braque and Picasso developed the technique by cutting up their own artwork and layering it to create fragmented pieces with added depth.
Still Life with Chair Caning by Picasso is one of the earliest examples of this technique in action, as it incorporates the object within the artwork itself. This is where painting and sculpture merge into art. Using the chair's wicker to frame the piece sparks discussion about representing objects, as it combines a painted chair in a still life with a real piece of the chair.
Reusing imagery is a process that is fundamental to artistic expression and has changed throughout art history. Gaining insight into this development is essential to understanding the intricate relationship between tradition and creativity, as it shows how artists interact with and modify pre-existing visual components over time.
Image source: TheMet. © RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY. Photo: Mathieu Rabeau
In art history, image appropriation is a critical method used by artists to recontextualise and question cultural narratives and societal conventions. By combining existing pictures, artists take control of the original context, changing mass media symbols and clichés into critical conversation. This method gained momentum during the rise of pop art when artists such as Warhol and Lichtenstein pushed the limits between high art and consumerism. Their work both praised and criticised the widespread use of mass media and advertising. These artists push audiences to question societal norms by revealing how shallow media ideas can be.
In this view, image appropriation emerges as a critical thread in art history. This promotes discussion about originality and its implications in an age of globalisation, where the abundance of images requires a deeper understanding of representation.However, it seems that appropriation does not simply comprise the artistic practice of referencing, being inspired by, or learning from other works of artists. Appropriation is a more controversial strategy. More specifically, certain artists were more literal in their appropriation of the work of others’ pictures, materials, or artwork
Duchamp’s Fountain (1917) is among the most famous works of art appropriation as he took an ordinary urinal and signed it "R. Mutt". This is one of the extreme examples of appropriation where he took a mass-produced practical object and presented it as art without altering the object itself. The relationship between the object and its creator was called into question by this act of appropriation. The urinal was not made by Duchamp; rather, he recontextualised it by attaching a title and displaying it in a different setting, which changed its significance. By doing this, he put out the theory that the work's concept may be just as important as its actual physical production.
Figure 2 : Marcel Duchamp, (1917), Fountain, (30.5 × 38.1 × 45.7 cm), Porcelain Urinal
Image source: Tate Gallery © Succession Marcel Duchamp/ADAGP, Paris and DACS, London 2025
Preziosi and Farago (Verstegen, 2011), acknowledge the potential of conceptual art hence they argue that ‘art is not what you think it is. In fact, it is not exactly an it at all.’ This challenges traditional perceptions of art as a tangible, definable object. Similarly, Sejten (2016), in her examination of Duchamp's Fountain, argues that ‘contemporary art has eventually abandoned the realm of aesthetics’ She contends that postmodern and conceptual art often disrupt straightforward representation, creating more than one meaning between
visual elements and their implied messages. This shift underscores a deliberate move away from traditional aesthetic concerns towards a focus on ideas and interpretation.
Art historians such as Foster (2002) argue that Duchamp was a central figure in the diminishing importance of traditional aesthetics. Evans (2007) reported that a common opinion of Duchamp’s Fountain when it was exhibited was “it was plagiarism, a plain piece of plumbing” (Anon. pg3). Since many critics have called Fountain an absurd piece of art, these criticisms might be interpreted negatively as the world values work, time, craftsmanship, and originality. Judd (1981) went as far as to say the mere presence of Duchamp’s work in a gallery is not enough to make it a work of art, citing the complete absence of originality in the work.
When Fountain (1917) was first introduced it was turned down for exhibiting by the Society of Independent Artists in New York. Duchamp questioned the authority of galleries, institutions, and critics to choose what was deemed worthy of being presented as art. His contributions made it possible for anything to be creatively generated from the everyday world, expanding the arts. Preziosi and Farago (Verstegen, 2011) viewed Fountain as revolutionary, declaring it a conceptual work that challenged traditional thinking and the strict notions of what art is. Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa was another target of appropriation by Duchamp where he added a goatee and moustache to a print which sold for $750,000 in 2017.
1.3 Development of Image Appropriation
As Duchamp faced the critique of originality the Pop Art movement experienced the same argument. The act of appropriation is not just a repurposing of existing images, but a revaluation of the relationship between art, culture and money. Pop artists like Warhol and Lichtenstein adopted images in the early 1960s from advertisements, comic strips, and popular magazines in the United States.
Warhol significantly influenced the Pop Art movement and used commercial techniques such as silkscreen printing to blur the difference between consumer culture and fine art. The art movement explored mass production, with artists using their work to reflect and challenge the values of consumerism that emerged during the economic growth following World War II
(EMP, 2024) In addition, his classics featured celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and included everyday household items such as a Campbell’s soup can. These reflected society's fascination with celebrities and consumerism. Further, Lichtenstein used images taken from comic strips and altered them, usually by making them larger and giving them a newspaperlike appearance. By using Ben-Day dots and sticking to primary colours, he captivated audiences with a simple printing technique that effectively conveyed his conceptual message.
Similarly, both Warhol and Lichtenstein frequently obscured the distinction between high art and mass media, effectively transforming consumerist symbols into art objects that express societal values. This appropriation seeks to re-evaluate the kind of innovation regarding authorship and authenticity. As observed in contemporary activities, the reliance on preexisting images might be interpreted as a response to culture's change. Conceptual frameworks developed in the mid-twentieth century, understanding that contemporary art does not relate primarily to the world but primarily to the art world (Stevens, 2023). It emphasises the critique of mimesis (imitation) that dominates previous artistic patterns. This is where the growth of pop art creativity shows a revolutionary discussion on originality that relates to current creative practices. The focus on copying and appropriation is consistent with current discussions in contemporary art, where the act of citation is used to engage with collective memory and reinterpret existing narratives (Rowe, 2011). The debate between copying and originality remains central to art criticism, making pop art a key influence on modern artistic practices. These artists and their innovations sparked ongoing conversations about uniqueness, identity, and the impact of consumption on art.
1.4 From Pop Art's Revolutionary Dialogue to Warhol’s Brillo Box: Analysing the Intersection of Art and Consumerism
Warhol’s Brillo Box (1964) is an iconic work of 20th-century art. It captures many of the main themes he explored throughout his career, which include consumerism, mass production, and examining the boundaries between high art and everyday objects. The piece is designed using silk screening and a wooden box to replicate a Brillo soap pad box.
Image source: MoMA © 2025 Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York
Brillo Box is a perfect example of Warhol's investigation into the transformation of commercial products into art as well as artistic appropriation. The American culture after the war was becoming increasingly oriented around the consumer, brand names, and packaging were becoming culture symbols. To make a revenue of this cultural phenomenon, Warhol incorporated the Brillo Box into an art piece.
Warhol's use of screen printing stands out in this case. Using this technique, he was able to create artwork fast and in large quantities, recreating the mass manufacturing of the consumer goods he portrayed. Brillo Box is a critique of modern mass production. Warhol obscures the line between art and everyday products by creating art that looks like something you'd find in a store. It raises the question of what makes art different from other items that can be massproduced. Warhol's examination of uniqueness and the artist's function is a fundamental component of his work. Artworks are typically viewed as one-of-a-kind, handcrafted items
that convey the creator's perspective. Warhol used Brillo Box to go against this idea. The ideas of authenticity and individuality are made more complicated because Warhol intentionally chose to replicate a mass-produced item using screen printing, a technique meant for copying. This connects to more general issues of appropriation and whether something identical to a commercial product can still be deemed as art. The issue of appropriation is discussed in an interview between Warhol and Swenson (Sichel, 2018), where he says
“I think it would be so great if more people would take up silkscreens so that, in turn, no one would know whether my picture was mine or whether it was somebody else.”
(Warhol, pg 1)
In this interview, they discuss pop art and other artists from that time. Warhol saw the topic of appropriation in a humorous light, as his work could be mistaken for someone else’s and vice versa. He wanted to encourage people to explore screen printing as a medium for creative appropriation. Since the process is essentially about copying and layering images, it allows for the creation of numerous pieces by different artists. They all share a cohesive, uniform aesthetic, not being able to tell the original from the copy. Just like the case with Brillo Box, it was seen as just a copy of a commercial product.
Danto and Goehr (2014) investigated the philosophical topic of what constitutes art through Warhol’s Brillo Box. They question why Brillo Box is considered a piece of art and the genuine product is not. He concludes that an object's physical characteristics do not define art; rather, the environment in which it is presented and comprehended does. Put another way, Brillo Box qualifies as art since it contributes to a conversation about art that is influenced by aesthetic theory, art history, and philosophy. According to Danto, Brillo Box signifies the "end" of art in a sense. Not that it has vanished, but rather that the conventional limits and definitions of what adds up to art have undergone significant change. In this way, Warhol's work marks a shift in the idea that art should now be defined by its concept and context rather than by its physical differences from commonplace objects.
Warhol’s Brillo Box is a key piece in the Pop Art movement, as it represents the irony of the distinction between "high" and "low" culture. Pop Art embraced commonplace imagery, especially that from commercial items and advertising. More conventional standards are
frequently disregarded as not deserving of artistic attention. Through the exhibition of Brillo Box in a gallery setting, Warhol questioned the privileged belief that art ought to be distinguished and elevated from popular culture. He skilfully challenged the random nature of these distinctions by bringing the "low" culture of consumerism into the "high" culture of the art world.
Warhol reinterpreted the artist’s function by acting more like a producer or curator than a lone artist when creating Brillo Box. This approach undermined conventional notions of creative brilliance and artistry by emphasising the idea behind the artwork rather than the actual creation process. Most people found Brillo Box to be interesting yet confusing at first, finding it difficult to accept it as art However, over time, it became an iconic piece that shaped contemporary discussions on the nature of art. Later generations of artists have been greatly impacted by Warhol's embrace of mass production and his erasing of the boundaries between art and appropriation, particularly in the areas of postmodernism and conceptual art. Instead of just replicating or imitating a commercial product, as is done in the usual cases of the phenomenon of Readymade’s work like Duchamp’s Fountain. Brillo Box by Warhol can be viewed as a conceptual statement on the nature of art, consumerism, and cultural value. It pushes spectators to re-evaluate where art and commonplace objects overlap and how contemporary art is defined. It continues to provoke conversations about turning art into money, the artist's function, and the cultural importance of common objects. Warhol's work is still relevant today and has influenced appropriation art
1.5 The Aura of Warhols Brillo Box
Benjamin introduced the concept of "Aura" which describes the presence and originality of an artistic creation. Benjamin (2008) states,
“even with the most perfect reproduction, one thing stands out: the here and now of the work of art – its unique existence in the place where it is at this moment.”
(Benjamin, 2008, pg 5)
He says that no imitation can match the value of the original. He contends that the individual existence of the original piece in time and dimension gives them an aura. The aura of mechanical reproduction is diminished because it takes the work out of its traditional context,
as seen in photography and film. The sensation of seeing many copies takes the place of the singular one that comes from viewing an original work. You could compare this work to Warhol’s Brillo Box. Warhol’s obsession with working large scale and mass reproduction with market culture in America was almost a celebration of consumer capitalism Blessing (2014) wrote,
“His embrace of subjects traditionally considered debased from celebrity worship to food labels has been interpreted as both an exuberant affirmation of American culture and a thoughtless espousal of the “low”. (Blessing, 2014, pg 1)
Blessing (2014) discusses how Warhol's Box might be criticised in two different ways. The phrase "exuberant affirmation of American culture" describes materialistic values, how they are embraced and the lack of originality in aspects of American culture. Warhol recognises ordinary American life, embraces everyday items, and creates incredible artwork. This helps to draw attention to common objects and favourably present them. On the other hand, the opposite viewpoint might be interpreted as replicating low-value, everyday objects. His work seems like an ineffective (lazy) attempt to recreate (appropriate) an ordinary object with no authentic message or concern behind it.
Benjamin's concepts are directly addressed in Warhol's Brillo Box. The artwork blurs the boundaries between art and commercial goods because it is essentially a copy of an ordinary, mass-produced item, a Brillo soap pad box. Warhol creates artwork that resembles a product you may get in a grocery store, challenging the conventional idea of art as something distinct or special. This is an obvious illustration of the "aura" being lost, as Benjamin puts it: the Brillo Box imitates a common, replicable object rather than having a distinctive look. Yet Benjamin's case is further complicated by Warhol's Brillo Box. By placing a mass-produced object into the environment of the art gallery, Warhol gives it a new “aura”. Through his works, Warhol effectively eliminates the conventional aura of painting and replaces it with a brand-new aura connected to the art world, celebrity culture, and selling ability. Brillo Box, therefore, captures the tension that Benjamin predicted Copying pictures and objects diminishes the nature and the originality of traditional art. Instead, in the works of Warhol as their author, the mass-produced object takes on a new status within the sphere of art Even if Brillo Box may have the same appearance as the genuine Brillo soap box, being in a museum or gallery lends it a new kind of value or uniqueness, it becomes a piece of art simply because
Warhol has said it is. This, of course, raises questions about why a piece of art possesses an aura. Do viewers perceive the context of the work, the artist’s intended message, or the relationship between an artwork and everyday objects and consumerism?
Chapter 2
2.1 Sherrie Levine’s Feminist Appropriation: Redefining Images, Descriptions, and Authorship
Levine is a feminist artist who emphasises the contrast between the feminine and masculine in her work. Her Appropriation Act was a bold feminist declaration challenging the maledominated art industry, where women were often seen as muses rather than creators (Singerman, 2002). Central to Levine’s work is the relationship between an image and its description. According to Singerman (2002), Levine's act of appropriation disrupted the traditional pairing of description and image, reframing their connection. Levine believes that the description of an image often comes before the image itself. This perspective aligns with Barthes' (1967) concept of the death of the author. Barthes (1967, p.98) states, "The birth of the viewer must be at the cost of the painter". Concerning the artwork, the interpretation of a piece is entirely left to the viewer, allowing them to apply their perspective and opinion. When Levine appropriated an original piece, she would call it "before and after”. Only when Levine created an "after" by appropriation can the genuine work be referred to as "before". However, Levine chose not to display her appropriated works alongside the original, as doing so would highlight their visual similarities rather than the conceptual differences she aimed to emphasise. Her approach emphasises her commitment to reshaping artistic authorship
Levine, a prominent figure in the Pictures Generation, used appropriation to critique and reinterpret works of art. Her work Fountain (Buddha) is a main example of this practice, taking inspiration from Duchamp's iconic Fountain Levine's approach to appropriation explores how her work engages with Marcel Duchamp's concept of the readymade.
2.2 Postmodern Appropriation
Kruger and Baudrillard’s contributions and theoretical perspectives offer a broader context for understanding Levine’s creative and conceptual framework. Appropriation is a major part of a postmodern perspective on art gaining prominence in the 1980s. Rowe described Levine as the most well-known appropriation artist Rowe (2011, pg 1) claims Levine “did not attempt to edit or manipulate any of these images, but simply capture them.”
Rowe (2011) argues that she appropriates work to bring more awareness of existing imagery, also asking the question, why should the use of pre-existing imagery and the idea of appropriation be considered unoriginal? Artists like Kruger are eager to challenge the concept of originality. In her work, she uses bold text to put advertisement imagery into a new context to challenge consumerism and gender norms Kruger (2014) comments,
“I work with pictures and words because they have the ability to determine who we are, what we want to be and who we become.”(Kruger, 2014, pg 8)
This relates to Wiley’s observation, at its core, art reflects who we are as humans and highlights what we value as individuals (Wiley, 2016). Wiley and Kruger both use art to challenge societal norms and empower marginalised groups. Wiley’s portraits of black individuals reimagine traditional European art, placing those historically excluded in positions of dignity and prominence. Similarly, Kruger’s work critiques power dynamics by using bold juxtaposing images and text to examine how gender, consumerism, and authority shape identity. Both artists challenged the norms of traditional hierarchies, highlighting the importance of representation, making their art a powerful statement of identity and empowerment.
This practice allows for playful reinterpretation, where existing artwork is given a new meaning and is presented differently. Frequent criticisms of appropriation address copyright infringement and plagiarism Legal disputes involving artists bring to light the ongoing tension between artistic freedom and property rights. In the case of Rogers vs. Koons, it is argued that Koon’s work critiques a political and economic system that overly values massproduced goods and media imagery. As Landes (2000) further pointed out, Koons claimed his work was to be seen as satire. However, the court ruled against Koons, emphasising that the piece did not meet the legal definition of satire. Although Koons didn’t create the sculpture himself, he sent the image to a company with instructions on alterations and
specifics of colour Priced at $400,000, the sculpture was seen as directly impacting the market for Rogers’ original photograph. This also touches on broader issues, such as cultural appropriation, particularly when artists borrow from marginalised cultures without proper acknowledgement or respect. These debates complicate where the lines between recognition, critique, and exploitation in artistic practice should be drawn.
2.3 Jean Baudrillard's Theory of the Simulacra
Jean Baudrillard assesses how postmodern society, symbols, and reality have evolved. For example, Baudrillard is right in claiming that in modern culture, the distinctions between representation and reality are unclear. The world people inhabit today is the world created by media, images, and art rather than the real world. He presents the idea of the “simulacrum” , which means a duplicate that continues to exist in its reality (Morris, 2020) In the past, symbols were meant to suggest a deeper truth. But in the postmodern world, symbols no longer refer to reality, resulting in what Baudrillard refers to as hyperreality. A situation in which the lines separating simulation and reality are complicated, and virtual reality has exceeded real life. The real world has been replaced by the virtual, leaving people unable to tell what is genuine or what is a representation of art
Baudrillard’s view of virtual reality is somewhat like Plato’s concept of mimesis, a Greek term meaning imitation, as a rationale for the philosophy of art (Larson,2023). In Plato’s view, mimesis refers to the replication of reality through art and literature. He considers artists as imitators who produce creations that are removed three times from the ultimate truth, which, in his philosophy, resides in the ideal world of forms and ideas (Omogunwa, 2018). Plato further argues that ideas are the originals, while physical creations are merely copies of these ideas. His concept of the world of forms refers to a perfect, unchanging reality represented by the ideal form of a chair. In contrast, the physical world consists of imperfect versions of these forms. Art, in Plato's view, represents yet another layer of imitation, it mirrors the physical world and is thus even further removed from the true reality of the forms. Critics of this perspective contend that by imitating the physical world, art fails to represent reality or connect to its true essence. However, this is precisely what makes art so captivating; it is not bound by the need to represent anything specific. Art’s subjectivity and abstraction open the door to endless interpretations and personal meanings
Plato (1998) [375b.c.] criticises artists for creating from inspiration rather than facts and knowledge; he thinks their work lacks a rational foundation. Similarly, mimesis produces images that are far different from the ultimate reality, he views the method as deceptive. Plato views art as a possible threat to society's moral and intellectual well-being, even if he admits its emotional and aesthetic appeal. The foundations of philosophical discussions regarding the worth and function of artistic representation were established by Plato's scepticism towards art.
Baudrillard’s ideas critique the media, modern consumer culture, and how symbols and images shape our understanding of reality. His concept of the simulacrum, along with Plato’s idea of mimesis, can be seen in Duchamp’s work, which creates its own kind of reality. For instance, when Duchamp’s Fountain is displayed in an art gallery, it’s taken out of its original context as a urinal, a functional object. Furthermore, Levine then continues this process by reinterpreting Duchamp’s work, making it further removed from its original reality, aligning with Plato’s idea of being “three times removed” from the truth.
2.4 Douglas Crimp: Rethinking Appropriation in Art
Crimp’s (1982) ‘Appropriating Appropriation’ provides a careful analysis of the role and place of appropriation in modernism and post-modernism (Burton, 2004). Crimp is concerned with how the practices of appropriation impact the ideas of originality, authorship and creativity. In addition, Crimp (1982) further highlighted that appropriation has become a common practice in art of the postmodernist period, by artists such as Sherrie Levine, Cindy Sherman and Richard Prince, who reproduced photographs and reused images for artistic concept. According to him, these artists employ appropriation as a critical tool to challenge the concept of the "original" and reveal how repetition, context, and history are used to generate meaning in art rather than as a simple way of copying.
Crimp challenges the notion of modernism that art is supposed to be original and authentic. According to Crimp, artists undermine conventional ideas of originality through appropriation. Byusingexistingworks,theychallengetheauthorityoftheoriginalartistandtheartinstitution, showing that meaning and value often come from context and institutional power, not true originality. Through appropriation, artists analyse other aspects of cultural issues like media
overload, consumerism, and the commercialisation of art. They also ask how meaning is attributed through transforming photos seen on social media or reproduced in mass production.
Crimp explains how women's depiction in art and popular culture is criticised by artists like Levine and Sherman. They demonstrate how conventional painting and television promote stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes towards females by altering women’s photos. Crimp (1982) situates appropriation as a critique and a powerful strategy for postmodern art concerning the value, originality and rights of objects in artwork.
2.5 Reinterpreting Originality: Sherrie Levine’s After Walker Evans
Levine's 1981 After Walker Evans work is among the most well-known examples of appropriation art (Evans, 2007) Levine re-photographs Walker Evans’s images depicting rural poverty for the Farm Security Administration. Levine questions traditional ideas of originality and authorship by showcasing the original photos as her art without altering them.
‘After Walker Evans’ challenges the modernist idea of the artist being unique and the authenticity of the piece. By taking an identical shot of Evans's work, Levine challenges the idea of an "original" in art. She raises the question of whether an artwork must be unique to be valuable and whether the artist's background alters the perception of the work. Her art makes the argument that all art involves some degree of appropriation because it draws from the past, external influences, and other artists' creations. Levine's act of appropriation challenges Evans as the "author" of these famous images and undercuts the notion that his shots are unchallenged. By doing this, she questions how cultural hierarchies determine which voices are valued and remembered.
Figure 4a: Sherrie Levine, (1981), After Walker Evans, (25.4 × 20.3 cm), Photography
Image source: Whitney Museum of American Art, © 1981 Sherrie Levine ©Walker Evans Archive, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Courtesy paula Cooper Gallery, New York
Figure 4b: Walker Evans, (1936), Alabama Tenant Farmer's Wife, (20.9 x 14.4 cm), Photography, Gelatin Silver Print.
Image source: MoMA, © 2025 Walker Evans Archive, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
There's also a significant feminist component to Levine's work. She challenges the maledominated art historical tradition, in which male artists have frequently been praised as geniuses, by taking inspiration from a male artist's work. By copying the work of male artists, Levine questions the idea that creativity is a unique, original trait of male genius. She rejects the concept of a "masterpiece" as the work of a single creator, showing that art can be collaborative, repeated, or shared. In addition, her feminist critique questions the authority of male-dominated art history and expands to address broader cultural and creative ideas.
“Levine’s photographs After Walker Evans may have taken on the structural possibility of history, the structural form of temporality, but the relation of the before and after is not yet the relation of past and present” (Singerman, 2002, pg 120).
Levine challenges the traditional perception of photography as an objective, documentary form by retaking Evans' images. The initial images by Evans were meant to serve as social documentation of poverty, displaying a vulnerability. But Levine draws attention to how photography is produced by taking these pictures and presenting them differently. Her work implies that even documentary photography is a well-thought-out and curated depiction rather than a clear insight into reality. Levine's method challenges the idea that Evans' images represent the whole truth of a documentary and draw the audience's focus to the reproducibility of the medium. Her photographs of Evans work serve as an analysis of how images are constantly reinterpreted and lose their original meaning as they pass through popular culture.
In addition, ‘After Walker Evans’ raises another issue regarding who "owns" a picture. Evan’s original images were part of a government-sponsored project, making them public property in some sense. Nonetheless, the art world has recognised them as works of great art. Levine's use of these images creates a conversation to examine the rights associated with distributing, claiming, and modifying visual representations. This is especially important when discussing appropriation work, which is frequently accused of being plagiarised or stolen. The act of Levine retaking photographs blurs the boundaries between appropriation and criticism, further complicating the problem of artistic ownership. It also highlights how organisations, galleries, and museums define what constitutes art and who is permitted to create it.
Levine's work serves as an excellent example of a key postmodern strategy, by copying and adding a new layer of meaning, she recontextualises the work of other artists. After Walker Evans is a statement on the power dynamics in the art industry, the circulation of art, and the temporary aspect of meaning that goes beyond being a copy. Exhibitions of Levine’s photographs of others’ work are in prestigious galleries and museums and they force viewers to reconsider how they engage with images, the importance of context, and the meaningmaking process. Therefore, Levine does not "steal" from Evans; rather, she promotes his work by creating a deeper concept.
2.6 Reimagining Duchamp: Sherrie Levine’s Sculptural Appropriation in Fountain
By reproducing Duchamp’s Fountain, Levine further explores the concept of appropriation Levine’s title, Fountain (Buddha), underscores the idea that her piece is not a completely original creation but a deliberate similarity to Duchamp’s work. However, it also asks the question, does Levine’s act of appropriation create a new original? In this sense, Levine challenges the traditional role of the artist as a creator instead of situating herself as an interpreter of history.
Levine reimagined Duchamp’s Fountain by transforming it into something more aesthetically pleasing. While Duchamp deliberately ignored the aesthetic value of the object, Levine embraced it, crafting her version in polished bronze. A material that gives the piece a refined, elegant quality, contrasting the fact it’s a urinal seen as a “dirty object”. Her work suggests the image of a meditating Buddha, blending form and material to create a completely new interpretation. Unlike Duchamp’s piece, which presents the urinal as it is, an everyday object. Levine’s version adds a sense of beauty, turning it into a more interesting work of art.
Levine took Duchamp’s original idea to the next level, emphasising the artist's ability to transform even the most ordinary objects into art. While Duchamp conveyed this idea simply by relocating the urinal into an art context, Levine promoted it by giving the object an aesthetic appeal with her choice of materials and its golden colour. By naming the piece Buddha, Levine draws a deliberate contrast between the ordinary, everyday object of a urinal and the spiritual and religious significance associated with the figure of Buddha.
In addition, Sherrie Levine deliberately distanced herself from modernist conventions that emphasised originality and authenticity in art. Instead, she challenged these ideas by building her artistic practice on acts of appropriation intended to convey specific messages. Her primary goal was to critique the patriarchal hierarchy in the art world, where women were often seen as muses or subjects but rarely as creators. In defiance of this male-dominated framework, Levine sought to "castrate" the authority of the male artist, asserting her position as a woman artist and challenging the power of the original creator.
Beyond her feminist intentions, Levine's work also explored the tension between the original piece and her own reinterpretation, rooted in the concept of the "almost-same” (Buskirk, 2012). She emphasised the reproducibility of photography and sculpture, mediums tied to negatives and moulds, by making only subtle stylistic changes to the originals. This approach made it seem like she was completing the original work’s hidden potential rather than completely changing it.
In the 20th century, Benjamin’s idea of “aura” (the unique presence of an original work of art) was influential in examining the effects of reproduction (Benjamin, 2008). Duchamp’s Fountain questioned this aura by declaring that an industrial object could be art. Levine’s work doubles down on this challenge, suggesting that even a reproduction of a reproduction might hold cultural value and be worthy of reflection. She brings forward Benjamin’s ideas in a contemporary context, where reproduction is even more common, and suggests that each version adds new meaning as shown in figures 5a-c.
Figure 5a: Marcel Duchamp, (1917), Fountain, (30.5 × 38.1 × 45.7 cm), Porcelain Urinal
Figure 5b: Sherrie Levine, (1996), Fountain(Buddha), (30.5 cm x 43.2 cm x 40.6 cm), Bronze Sculpture
Image source: Institute of Contemporary Art / Boston. © Sherrie Levine
Figure 5c: Irene Buchan, (2024), Pink Urinals, (standard urinal), Soap and Expanding Foam
Image source: The Glasgow School of Art, © Irene Buchan
Levine’s Fountain also critiques the market of selling artwork. While Duchamp’s Fountain challenged traditional ideas of the value of art, Levine’s shows how even appropriation can be turned into a product to be bought and sold. Her recreation highlights the irony that critiques of commercialism and the art world can themselves become valuable items. She questions how institutions define and legitimise art; especially how certain objects gain importance through their status as classics.
Appropriation remains a vital and evolving concept in contemporary art. A recent example is Buchan's 2024 degree show, which builds on a lineage that includes the influence of Duchamp and later artists like Levine (Glasgow School of Art Design Show, 2024). Drawing from Levine’s Buddha-inspired reinterpretation of Duchamp’s work, Buchan reimagines the urinal as an object of aesthetic value and symbolic meaning.
Her piece examines how a traditionally male-identified object can be reappropriated to challenge its cultural associations. It investigates the sociological and limited implications of the urinal in contemporary society, exploring its ties to mass production, gender stereotypes, and its connection to the body. Buchan’s concept emerged from her personal experience working on a male-dominated construction site, where she faced sexism (Buchan, 2024). This work demonstrates the continuation of appropriation and raises contextual issues for society associated with gender, identity, and culture in a modern context.
Appropriation is not a boring repetition that loses value when shared. Using someone else’s idea does not diminish its strength; on the contrary, it could lead to innovations that benefit both the originator and the one building on it. This prompts us to reconsider why we treat the exchange and evolution of ideas as if they were limited resources to be guarded rather than recognising the fundamental role that open collaboration plays in driving artistic and societal progress. In the 1800s, Thomas Jefferson spoke on his perspective on intellectual property, emphasising the importance of sharing ideas freely for the growth of humanity. He wrote,
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition" (Jefferson, 1813, pg1).
In the spirit of appropriation, I believe that ideas should freely spread from one to another across the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of people, and the improvement of their
condition. Treating art as untouchable or incapable of being reused prevents growth and innovation. When ideas or artistic expression are shared and built upon, they spread quickly, especially in the digital age, where creativity and progress are celebrated.
Conclusion
In this dissertation, the aim has been to explore the evolution of appropriation with a critique of originality in Pop Art and its progression to Contemporary Art The concept of appropriation often sparks critical debate within the art world, as it can be perceived by some as mere copying or a lack of creative skill. However, through exploring key moments such as the legal case of Rogers v. Koons (1992), we can understand how seriously appropriated work is regarded, particularly when it has an economic impact on an artist’s livelihood.
Appropriation has been a recurring theme throughout art history, influencing movements and artists across decades. This dissertation has traced appropriation’s progression through the works of Duchamp, Warhol, and Levine, demonstrating how their approaches have shaped the discourse around originality. The work of Buchan illustrates how the influence of Duchamp’s Readymade, particularly the iconic urinal, continues to inspire the contemporary art movement today. This enduring legacy highlights appropriation's complex and transformative role in redefining creativity and artistic innovation.
Works of art from the past, ranging from imaginative still life to iconic music videos, fashion trends, and home goods, will continue to inspire contemporary creativity as art becomes increasingly accessible. By adapting classic art to fit the present era, people are making it more inclusive, diverse, and even playful at times. Appropriation serves as a transformative tool, giving artists greater freedom to express their ideas about art by reinterpreting it in ways that challenge and reshape perspectives.
This study found that Pop Art clearly influenced the rise of Contemporary Art movements where art was merged with everyday life and media culture. Transforming ordinary consumer goods and mass media icons into the realm of fine art challenged the definition of art in a world shaped by consumerism and mass production. Appropriation’s influence persists in postmodern and contemporary movements. The line between inspiration and imitation
remains unclear and continues to spark critical conversations and discussions about art This is evident when dealing with appropriated works that are open to diverse interpretations, reflecting the theoretical ideas of Barthes (1967).
Appropriation has reshaped the definition of art, pushing the boundaries of creativity. Exploring the work of Levine highlights a link to artistic expression. It prompts people to reflect on the significance of the idea behind the work and who the artist is behind it. Rowe (2011) concludes that appropriation in contemporary art serves as a powerful, though often debated, means of engaging with a complex modern society. By reinterpreting the familiar, elicits a dialogue about authenticity, ownership, and the evolving concept of art. Xiaoling (2020) holds a similar opinion to Rowe concluding that appropriation is a great way to reflect on society and create art however he states,
“Appropriation should not be viewed as a shortcut to create works of art” (Xiaoling, 2020, pg 258)
Appropriation should not be dismissed but rather recognised as a creative technique within contemporary art practices. It offers a platform for greater creative freedom, allowing artists to break away from rigid aesthetics and traditional techniques. Artists like Cody Choi viewed appropriation as engaging with existing works whilst embedding their voice within the narrative of another artist's creation. This approach reflects the evolving role of appropriation as a powerful tool for innovation in the art world and the potential of art should never be limited.
Bibliography
Allen, A. (2023). Roland Barthes and the death of the teacher. Oxford Review of Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2289510 [Accessed 11 Dec. 2024].
Ames, E.K. (1993) Beyond Rogers v. Koons: A Fair Use Standard for Appropriation. Columbia Law Review, 93(6), p.1473. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1123081. [Accessed 16 Nov. 2024].
Arbex-Enrico, M. (2023). Collage as a Creative Act: Emergence, Displacement, and Resignification. Springer eBooks, pp.1–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91263-5_371. [Accessed 15 Dec. 2024].
Benjamin, W. and Underwood, J. A. (2008) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. London: Penguin.
Blessing, J. “Andy Warhol.” The Guggenheim. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/4177>. [Accessed 18 Dec. 2024].
Burton, J. (2004). Subject to Revision. [online] Artforum. Available at: https://www.artforum.com/features/subject-to-revision-169878/. [Accessed 24 Dec.2024].
Buskirk, M. (2012). Sherrie Levine. [online] Artforum. Available at: https://www.artforum.com/events/sherrie-levine-2-192190/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2025].
CK-12 Foundation (2024). Plato. Available at: https://flexbooks.ck12.org/user:coachtgj/cbook/episdphilosophy/section/2.4/primary/lesson/plato/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].
Crimp, D. (1982). Appropriating appropriation. Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/a/af/Crimp_Douglas_1982_Appropriating_Appropriation.pdf [Accessed 19 Dec 2024].
Cuntz A. and Sahli M. (2023) Risky Trade? Appropriation Art, Copyright and Secondary Market Effects. Available at: https://culturaleconomics.org/risky-trade-appropriation-artcopyright-and-secondary-market-effects/ [Accessed 15 Dec. 2024].
Danto, A.C. and Goehr, L. (2014). After the end of art: contemporary art and the pale of history. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Evans, D., Whitechapel Gallery, & Whitechapel Gallery. (2007). Appropriation. Whitechapel.
Foster, H. (2002) The anti-aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture. New York: New Press.
Gildersleeve, R. E. and Guyotte, K. W. (2020). Readymade Methodology. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(8–9), pp. 1122–1130. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419881661[Accessed 23 Dec. 2024].
Glasgow School of Art Degree Show (2024). Irene Buchan. Available at: https://gsashowcase.net/irene-buchan/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2024].
Harper, D. (2024). Appropriation: origin and meaning of appropriation. Available at: www.etymonline.com. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/appropriation [Accessed 11 Oct. 2024].
Hutnyk, J. (1999). Hybridity Saves? Authenticity and/or the Critique of Appropriation. Amerasia Journal, 25(3), pp.39–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17953/amer.25.3.6w854588562p6575 [Accessed 14 Oct. 2024].
Jefferson, T. (1813) Chapter 16: Document 25: Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813, Writings 13:333 34. Available at: https://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s25.html#:~:text=That%20ideas%20should% 20freely%20spread,their%20density%20in%20any%20point%2C [Accessed 19 Dec. 2024].
Judd Foundation. (n.d.). In Advance of the Broken Arm, 1964. [online] Available at: https://juddfoundation.org/index-of-works/in-advance-of-the-broken-arm-1964/.
Kruger, B. (2014) Barbara Kruger - Who We Are and Aren’t. Available at: https://dayoftheartist.com/2014/04/18/day-108-barbara-kruger-who-we-are-and-arent/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2024].
Landes, W. (2000). Copyright, Borrowed Images and Appropriation Art: An Economic Approach. U Chicago Law & Economics: Olin Working Paper No. 113. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=253332 [Accessed 9 Dec. 2024].
Larson, A. (2023). Simulacra and Simulation Hypothesis: How Real is Our Reality? [online] Scholarship @ Claremont. Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/3262/. [Accessed 2 Dec. 2024].
Lesper, A. (2021). ‘The Fraud of Contemporary Art’: Dangerous Art Criticism by Avelina Lesper. Available at: https://artofericwayne.com/2021/08/09/the-fraud-of-contemporary-artdangerous-art-criticism-by-avelina-lesper/ [Accessed 21 Nov. 2024].
Levine, S. (1996). Fountain (Buddha). Available at: https://www.icaboston.org/art/sherrielevine/fountain-buddha/.
Linden, L. (2016). Reframing Pictures: Reading the Art of Appropriation. Art Journal (New York. 1960), 75(4), pp. 40–57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.2016.1269561
Metrano, M. (2016). In the Archive of Longing. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SaMxEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq= susan+sontag+critique+on+appropriation&ots=wUC4ag4ihf&sig=r91OeavhVRSBnjwJDcl14 Ntw_BI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].
Mirror, A.A. (2024). EMP_Art. [online] EMP_Art. Available at: https://www.empart.com/emp-blog/pop-art-a-mirror-to-consumerism-and-mass-media [Accessed 5 Dec. 2024].
Morris, J. (2020). Simulacra in the age of social media: Baudrillard as the prophet of fake news. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45(4), pp.319–336. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859920977154. [Accessed 6 Nov. 2024].
Omogunwa, I. (2018). The Carpenter as a Philosopher Artist: a Critique of Plato’s Theory of Mimesis. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/OMOTCA [Accessed 9 Dec. 2024].
Paijmans, T. (2018). The iconic Fountain (1917) is not created by Marcel Duchamp Available at: https://seeallthis.com/blog/the-iconic-fountain-1917-is-not-created-by-marcelduchamp/ [Accessed 9 Dec. 2024].
Pécoil, V. (2005). EBSCO Information Services Service Selection Page. [online] Ebscohost.com. Available at: https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=15254743-ecce-452e8f94-5bec9e66be48%40redis [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].
Philadelphia Museum of Art (2024). Brillo Boxes. Available at: https://philamuseum.org/collection/object/89204. [Accessed 5 Nov 2024]
Plato (1998) The Republic (translated by Benjamin Jowett). Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1497/pg1497-images.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2023].
Plato (375b.c.). The Republic Utah: Project Gutenberg.
Rowe, H.A. (2011). Appropriation in Contemporary Art. Inquiries Journal, 3(6). Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1661/appropriation-in-contemporary-art [Accessed 5 Oct. 2024].
Sdegno, A. (2018). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin. Disegno (Roma), 1(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.26375/disegno.2.2018.17 [Accessed 23 Dec. 2024].
Sejten, A. (2016). Art fighting its way back to aesthetics Revisiting Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. Journal of Art Historiography Number, 15. Available at: https://arthistoriography.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/sejten.pdf [Accessed 4 Nov. 2024]
Sichel, J. (2018). ‘What is Pop Art?’ A Revised Transcript of Gene Swenson’s 1963 Interview with Andy Warhol. Oxford Art Journal, 41(1), pp. 85–100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxartj/kcy001 [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].
Singerman, H. (2002). Sherrie Levine’s Art History. October, [online] 101, pp.97–121.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/779195. [Accessed 15 Dec. 2024].
Stevens, A.V. (2023). Wicked Heritage Problems: Rethinking Critical Heritage Theory with Contemporary Liminality. Global Perspectives, 4(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2023.82128. [Accessed 20 Dec. 2024].
Tearle, O. (2021). A Summary and Analysis of Roland Barthes’ ‘The Death of the Author’. [online] Interesting Literature. Available at: https://interestingliterature.com/2021/10/barthesdeath-of-the-author-summary-analysis/. [Accessed 23 Dec. 2024]
Townsend, P. and Washington (1983). The Anti-Aesthetic Essays on Postmodern Culture
Available at: https://monoskop.org/images/0/07/Foster_Hal_ed_The_AntiAesthetic_Essays_on_Postmodern_Culture.pdf [Accessed 10 Oct. 2024].
Verstegen, I. (2013). ‘Art is not what you think it is (but we can approach it through the Art Matrix)’. Review of: Donald Preziosi and Claire Farago, Art is Not What You Think It Is. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Journal of Art Historiography, 9, pp. 9-IV1. [Accessed 9 Nov. 2024].
Victorian Visual Culture. (2014). Walter Benjamin meets Pop Art: The ‘Aura’ of Andy Warhol’s ‘Electric Chair’ Series. [online] Available at: https://victorianvisualculture.blog/2014/10/14/walter-benjamin-meets-pop-art-the-aura-ofandy-warhols-electric-chair-series/ [Accessed 23 Dec. 2024].
Wiley, K. (2016). Kehinde Wiley reimagines old portraits because ‘if Black Lives Matter, they deserve to be in paintings’ Available at: https://theworld.org/stories/2016/11/02/artistkehinde-wiley-re-imagines-old-style-portraits-because-if-black-lives. [Accessed 10 Oct. 2024].
Xiaoling, D. and Qing, K. (2020). The Transformation of Appropriation in Contemporary Art. International Journal of Literature and Arts, 8(4), p.255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijla.20200804.21. [Accessed 22 Dec. 2024].