Originality In Art Essay

On the fourth floor of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, alone on a wall in gallery 18, is one of Jasper Johns’ most famous works: Target with Four Faces, from 1955, featuring a shooting target topped with four plaster casts of noses and mouths. One storey down, at the end of a hallway on the third floor, there’s another. The same target, the same mouths, the same hinged wooden door: even the most devoted Johns fan might have trouble seeing that it isn’t the real thing. But it is the real thing, just by another artist. It is Sturtevant’s Johns Target with Four Faces, from 1986 – and just one of dozens of slippery, sinister and perplexing works by an artist who looked like everyone but herself.

“To be a Great Artist is the least interesting thing I can think of,” wrote Sturtevant (née Elaine Frances Horan; Sturtevant, her single professional name, was taken from an ex-husband) in 1972. Yet here she is at MoMA, the temple of great artists and an institution that owns none of her works, but many of the sources for them. The exhibition Sturtevant: Double Trouble looks at first like a group show of some of the most famous figures of the last century: Beuys and Warhol, Lichtenstein and Haring. In fact they are all works by one artist, who recreated her colleagues’ paintings and sculptures with the same techniques they used, and not via photographic or digital means. (She never asked permission, though Warhol once lent her his flower silkscreen.) Marcel Duchamp’s Fresh Widow of 1920 is here too: seven of them, actually, all lined up in a row and all looking exactly like the ‘original’ Duchamp, which is itself a readymade, that MoMA displays upstairs.

View image of (Pinault Collection/ Axel Schneider, Frankfurt am Main/Estate Sturtevant) (Credit: Pinault Collection/ Axel Schneider, Frankfurt am Main/Estate Sturtevant)

Sturtevant, who died earlier this year at age 89, did far more than replicate, especially after she turned to video in the 1990s. But her chameleon-like renditions of other artists’ work defined her career – engendering violent criticism in the 1960s, and finding wide recognition only later in life. The easy and wrong conclusion about her art is that the other artists’ work is her subject matter: that the paintings at MoMA are copies for copying’s sake. But Sturtevant’s convincing yet imperfect repetitions aren’t exactly copies, and as the curator Peter Eleey observes in an authoritative essay accompanying the show: “the initial quick read of her work… is itself a form of repetition.”

Graven image

Counterfeiters copy, and conceal they are doing so. Students copy, as artistic training. Assistants copy, as labour for more famous artists. But as Sturtevant shows, the border between original and copy, invention and plagiarism, is constantly up for negotiation. She was faking Warhol and Lichtenstein and Johns – but she was faking the act of faking them too, using the techniques of a parodist  – or criminal forger – for much bolder ends. Philosophically sophisticated but not at all conceptual in execution, Sturtevant’s art actually hinges less on copying than on the big questions of authority, authorship, circulation and history.

It’s a fraught relationship, the original and the copy, and it has been a hallmark of debates around modern and contemporary art. Yet one can’t understand the stakes involved in copying without seeing how artistic originality itself came to have meaning at the beginning of the modern era. Albrecht Dürer painted, but he made his money as an entrepreneurial printmaker, selling woodcuts and engravings that he and his assistants produced on his own printing press. That the prints were not unique was irrelevant. They were all ‘Dürers’, proudly bearing his interlocking A-D monogram, and they were invested not only with his physical gestures but also something that Dürer called Gewalt, literally ‘force’. Here it means an innate, God-given, imaginative authority, or a genius for creation. And when he went after copyists, dragging them to court in Nuremberg and Venice (and in one case threatening to murder them), Dürer insisted that it was not just his labour they were stealing. He called them “envious thieves of work and invention”: copies infringed on his Gewalt, his name and his genius, and not his effort alone.

View image of (Wikimedia Commons) (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Before the 16th Century, artists rarely signed their names and usually clubbed together in guilds, valuing their work as much as woodworkers, goldsmiths, or other craftsmen. But Dürer, as far back as 1500, articulates a notion we now find commonplace: that the artistic and indeed financial value of a work of art inheres in the creative and imaginative impulses of the artist, rather than in the labour that produced it. It’s no coincidence that this development in art history coincides with the rise of the printing press in Europe. Printmaking, just like later reproductive media such as photography and 3-D printing, eliminated the trace of the artist’s hand from the finished artwork. Value therefore had to come from somewhere else: from an intellectual or even spiritual inspiration, and not from craft.

The 16th Century conception of artistic originality marked a big shift from earlier periods of art history, when, say, a Roman copy of a Greek statue was just as ‘original’ as its source. Now, to copy was to simulate something more than just form. It was to simulate an artist’s ideas too, in most cases fraudulently. And this is true even when the ‘original’ is not unique: in a series of prints, for instance. Does that still hold? Numerous philosophers and theorists in the last few decades proposed that modern media had killed the possibility of originality (such was Jean Baudrillard's contention) or that originality was a fraud (so insisted David Shields). But even an artist as slippery as Sturtevant, whose own Gewalt was so deftly hidden, suggests that the old tradition is still with us.

Copycats

No work of art arrives from nothing, of course. Manet’s Déjeuner sur l’herbe, one of the grandest and most copied works of western art history, is based in large part on an Italian Renaissance print. Pablo Picasso (“good artists copy; great artists steal”) could never have painted his breakthrough works of the 1900s without recourse to African sculpture. So when Sturtevant used her colleagues’ art as source material, or in Eleey’s words “adopted style as a medium”, she was not really undertaking a radical break. She was simply turning up the volume on a more enduring artistic truth. As she once said, not very politely: “You'd have to be a mental retard to claim the death of originality.”

View image of (Wikimedia Commons) (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Sturtevant’s ‘copies’ are in fact studies in the differences that can arise through repetition. That’s one reason why her art does not amount to a copyright violation. To infringe on copyright, the later work must have the same intention as the original. Sturtevant’s replicas have quite different goals, and in any case require a degree of confusion in order to function. The possibility of originality endures – but only through replication. You can only make something new if you make something that already exists.

It was a commonplace, in the mid-20th Century, to insist that mechanical reproduction spelled the end of originality, or that the death of the author was upon us and that authorial invention was a fraud. But for all the sway of these ideas inside the academy, anyone who has pushed through the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa, or for that matter who waited in line to see Jeff Koons’ pristine and hand-free sculptures, can tell you that the exact opposite has happened in real life. Mechanical reproduction has made ‘original’ works of art even more desirable, not less so, with many works achieving cult-like devotion. Another confirmation of this is the towering prices for art today, notably for photography and other easily reproducible artworks. Artists make art, out of whatever materials they need, and never in a vacuum; then the system and the market do what they will. As Sturtevant once said, “Remake, reuse, reassemble, recombine – that’s the way to go.”

If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Culture, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.

Appropriation refers to the act of borrowing or reusing existing elements within a new work. Post-modern appropriation artists, including Barbara Kruger, are keen to deny the notion of ‘originality’. They believe that in borrowing existing imagery or elements of imagery, they are re-contextualising or appropriating the original imagery, allowing the viewer to renegotiate the meaning of the original in a different, more relevant, or more current context.

"I'm interested in coupling the ingratiation of wishful thinking with the criticality of knowing better. To use the device to get people to look at the picture, and then to displace the conventional meaning that an image usually carries with perhaps a number of different readings."
Barbara Kruger, 1987.

In separating images from the original context of their own media, we allow them to take on new and varied meanings. The process and nature of appropriation has considered by anthropologists as part of the study of cultural change and cross-cultural contact.

Images and elements of culture that have been appropriated commonly involve famous and recognisable works of art, well known literature, and easily accessible images from the media.

The first artist to successfully demonstrate forms of appropriation within his or her work is widely considered to be Marcel Duchamp. He devised the concept of the ‘readymade’, which essentially involved an item being chosen by the artist, signed by the artist and repositioned into a gallery context.

By asking the viewer to consider the object as art, Duchamp was appropriating it. For Duchamp, the work of the artist was in selecting the object. Whilst the beginnings of appropriation can be located to the beginning of the 20th century through the innovations of Duchamp, it is often said that if the art of the 1980’s could be epitomised by any one technique or practice, it would be appropriation.

This essay focuses on contemporary examples of this type of work.

Left: Robert Colesscott, Les Demoiselles d’Alabama, 1985; Right: Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, 1907

Above we see a contemporary example of appropriation, a painting which borrows its narrative and composition from the infamous Les Demoiselles d’Avignon by Picasso. Here Colesscott has developed Picasso’s abstraction and ‘Africanism’ in line with European influences. Colescott has made this famous image his own, in terms of colour and content, whilst still making his inspiration clear. The historical reference to Picasso is there, but this is undeniably the artist’s own work. Other types of appropriation often do not have such clear differences between the original and the newly appropriated piece.

The concepts of originality and of authorship are central to the debate of appropriation in contemporary art. We shall discuss these in depth in order to contextualise the works we will investigate later in this essay. To properly examine the concept it is also necessary to consider the work of the artists associated with appropriation with regards to their motivations, reasoning, and the effect of their work.

The term ‘author’ refers to one who originates or gives existence to a piece of work. Authorship then, determines a responsibility for what is created by that author. The practice of appropriation is often thought to support the point of view that authorship in art is an outmoded or misguided concept. Perhaps the most famous supporter of this notion was Roland Barthes. His 1966 work ‘The Death of the Author’ argued that we should not look to the creator of a literary or artistic work when attempting to interpret the meaning inherent within. “The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or woman who created it… (but) it is language which speaks; not the author.” With appropriated works, the viewer is less likely to consider the role of the author or artist in constructing interpretations and opinions of the work if they are aware of the work from which it was appropriated. Questions are more likely to concern the validity of the work in a more current context, and the issues raised by the resurrection and re-contextualising of the original. Barthes finishes his essay by affirming, “The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author.” , Suggesting that one can and should only interpret a work on it’s own terms and merit, not that of the person who created it. In contrast to the view supported by the much-cited words of Roland Barthes, is the view that appropriation can in fact strengthen and reaffirm the concept of authorship within art. In her 2005 essay Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art, Sherri Irvin argues:

“Appropriation artists, by revealing that no aspect of the objectives an artists pursues are in fact built in to the concept of art, demonstrate artists’ responsibility for all aspects of their objectives and hence, of their products. This responsibility is constitutive of authorship and accounts for the interpretability of artworks.”

Authorship then, is a concept we most consider when discussing appropriated works. The evidence presented suggests that the notion of authorship is still very much present within appropriation in contemporary art. However, the weight of Barthes argument is such that we must take it into account. Perhaps a diminished responsibility or authorship is something we can consider in this context.

Perhaps the most central theme in the discourse on appropriation is the issue of originality. The primary question we must address is – what is originality? It is a quality that can refer to the circumstances of creation – i.e. something that is un-plagiarised and the invention of the artist or author? We can approach originality in two ways: as a property of the work of art itself, or alternatively as a property of the artist. As we have said, many appropriation artists are keen to deny the notion of originality. In a paper addressing the notion of originality within appropriated art, Julie Van Camp states:

“We value originality because it demonstrates the ability of the artist to advance the potential of an art form.”

This statement is problematic, as it is almost dismissive of the ability of an artist who chooses appropriation as their form of representation. Let us look to the example of Sherrie Levine, perhaps the most well-known and cited appropriation artist. Levine worked first with collage, but is most known for her work with re-photography – taking photographs of well known photographic images from books and catalogues, which she then presents as her own work. In 1979 she photographed work by photographer Walker Evans from 1936. Her work did not attempt to edit or manipulate any of these images, but simply capture them.

Left: Sherrie Levine, After Walker Evans, 1981; Right: Walker Evans, Alabama Tenant Farmer's Wife, 1936

By bringing this work back into the conscious of the art world, she was advancing the art form that is photography by using it to increase our awareness of already existing imagery. On a basic level, we tend to equate originality with aesthetic newness. Why should a new concept – the concept of appropriation and the utilising of existing imagery – be deemed unoriginal? Sherrie Levine was interested in the idea of “multiple images and mechanical reproduction”. She said of her work “it was never an issue of morality; it was always an issue of utility.” This statement is easily applied to the works of other appropriation artists, as well as Levine’s.

Barbara Kruger’s work utilised media imagery in an attempt to interpret consumer society. Her background was in media and advertising, having worked as a graphic designer, and picture editor for Condé Nast. Her work “combines compelling images… with pungently confrontational assertations to expose stereotypes beneath.” Her most famous work typically combines black and white photography, overlaid with text in a red and white typeface. Statements within her work such as “We don’t need another hero”, “Who knows that depression lurks when power is near?” and “Fund healthcare not warfare” have naturally led viewers to consider her art as politically themed. Kruger however, finds the political label often attached to her work problematic.

In a 1988 interview she insists, “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.” Whilst there may or may not be political elements to Kruger’s work, the undeniable underlying theme prominent throughout all of her works is the issue of our consumer society.

By using images available for public consumption in a composition with a thought provoking statement, Kruger is asking us to rethink the images that we consume on a daily basis in terms of perception and how underlying messages function within this imagery. Kruger’s use of “less abstract subjects than Duchamp’s” may well increase the accessibility of her work, making it familiar and thus available to a wider audience.


Untitled (We Don’t Need Another Hero), Barbara Kruger, 1987

Barbara Kruger is still creating art today, and the most current example of her work is seen in the November 2010 issue of W Magazine: The Art Issue featuring reality TV star Kim Kardashian on the cover. It features a naked Kardashian with Kruger’s famous red and white block text covering her modesty. The text reads ‘It’s all about me/I mean you/I mean me”. Combining the words of Kruger and the image of currently world famous Kardashian is a form of appropriation in itself. W Magazine is appropriating the star into an art context, by simply featuring her on the cover of their art issue. This could be an attempt to consider another area of our consumer culture, which the cover star makes her living from – reality TV – as an art form. Here W Magazine has appropriated the image of Kardashian, and is therefore asking us to consider the ‘art’ of reality TV.

W Magazine, The Art Issue, November 2010

The idea of using appropriation to address the consumption of imagery is something that was addressed in the pivotal 1977 exhibition Pictures. In the exhibition catalogue, curator Douglas Crimp noted to growing extent to which our day-to-day experience is governed by images from the media. He said: “Next to these pictures our firsthand experience begins to retreat, to seem more and more trivial…It therefore becomes imperative to understand the picture itself.” Crimp’s exhibition at the New York Artist’s Space used the work of artists including Sherrie Levine, Troy Bauntuch and Robert Longo to display appropriation as a new mode of representation. The exhibition has a considerable impact on the art world – it launched a new art based on the (usually unauthorised) possession of the images and artefacts of others.

Richard Prince is an appropriation artist who is commonly thought to have featured in the pivotal Pictures exhibition, despite having no connections with it whatsoever. His work however, addresses the same issues tackled by the artists in Crimp’s exhibition. Much of his work focused on the re-photography of caption less advertisements for high end products such as perfume, fashion and watches. Interested in commodity and consumption, “Prince was treated as a social communicator whose aim was to critique commodification.”


Left: Jim Krantz; Right: Richard Prince

Here Prince has re-photographed and re-proportioned an image from an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes. Much like the work of Sherrie Levine, there is very little that the artist Richard Prince has done to alter the original work. The questions of originality and authorship continually surround Prince and his work. When asked to comment about his ‘borrowings’ for an article in the New York Times, he declined to comment, stating only: “I never associated advertisements with having an author.”

The discourse and attention surrounding the concept of appropriation is so extensive that we must consider it an art form. One of Richard Prince’s Marlboro appropriation photographs sold at Christies for $1.2 million in 2005, setting a new record for appropriation art. Art of all genres has something that makes us think, or evokes a feeling – any feeling, in it’s viewer. Whilst some may consider appropriation as copying or forgery, it is clear that the controversial art form has now gained recognition worthy of a contemporary art practice.


After Sherrie Levine by Jeanne Siegel. (2001.) Available at: www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html (Accessed 4th Feburary 2011).

‘Artisan of History’. (2009). Available at: http://artisanhistory.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html Accessed 20th February 2011.

Barthes, R. (1967). ‘The Death of the Author’ in Stygall, G (2002). Academic Discourse: Readings for Argument and Analysis, Taylor and Francis: London.

Dunleavy, D. (2007). ‘The irony of art in a culture of appropriation’. Available at: http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/2007/12/the-irony-of-ar.html Accessed 20th February 2011

Evans, D. (2009). Appropriation. Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press: London/Massachusetts.

Irvin, S. (2005). ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 45, No. 2.

Kruger, B. (1999). Thinking of You. MIT Press: Massachusetts.

‘Mary Boone Gallery’ (2011) Available at: http://www.maryboonegallery.com/artist_info/pages/kruger/detail2.html Accessed 20th February 2011

Sandler, I. (1996). Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960’s to the Early 1990’s. Westview Press: Colorado.

Siegel, J. (1988). Art Talk: the Early 80’s. Di Capo Press: Michigan

Kennedy, R. (2007). ‘If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original?’. The New York Times [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1&ex=1197867600&en=ce95b8dd14df4dd8&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Accessed 28th February 2011

W Magazine. (2010). Available at: http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2010/11/kim_kardashian_queen_of_reality_tv_ss#slide=10 Accessed 22nd February 2011.


1.) Stiles, K (1996) Theories and documents of contemporary art: a sourcebook of artists' writings University of California Press: CA. p. 377

2.) Van Camp, J (2007) ‘Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art’ The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36: 4 p.247

3.) Schneider, A (2007) Appropriation as Practice. Art and Identity in Argentina, Palgrave Macmillan pp.24-5

4.) Sandler, I (1996) Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960’s to the Early 1990’s Westview Press: Colorado p. 321

5.) Image from ArtNet: Available at: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/walrobinson/walrobinson9-1-2.asp Accessed 28th Febuary 2011

6.) Moma Collection Online: Available at: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79766

7.) Irvin, S (2005) ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’ British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 45, No. 2, p. 123

8.) Barthes, R (1967) ‘The Death of the Author’ in Stygall, G (2002) Academic Discourse: Readings for Argument and Analysis, Taylor and Francis: London p. 102

9.) Ibid p.106

10.) Irvin, S (2005) p.123

11.) Van Camp (2007) p.248

12.) Ibid. p.250

13.) http://artisanhistory.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

14.) After Sherrie Levine by Jeanne Siegel (2001) Available at: www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html (Accessed 4th Feburary 2011)

15.) Siegel, J (1988) Art Talk: the Early 80’s Di Capo Press: Michigan p. 299

16.) Ibid, p. 303.

17.) Kruger, B (1999) Thinking of You MIT Press: Massachusetts p. 9.

18.) http://www.maryboonegallery.com/artist_info/pages/kruger/detail2.html

19.) http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2010/11/kim_kardashian_queen_of_reality_tv_ss#slide=10

20.) Sandler, I (1996) p.319.

21.) Evans, D. (Eds.) (2009) Appropriation Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press: London/Massachusetts p. 12

22.) Sandler, I (1996) p. 326.

23.) http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/2007/12/the-irony-of-ar.html

24.) Kennedy, R (2007) ‘If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original?’ The New York Times [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1&ex=1197867600&en=ce95b8dd14df4dd8&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Accessed 28th Febuary 2010.

25.) Ibid.

After Sherrie Levine by Jeanne Siegel. (2001.) Available at: www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html (Accessed 4th Feburary 2011).

‘Artisan of History’. (2009). Available at: http://artisanhistory.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html Accessed 20th February 2011.

Barthes, R. (1967). ‘The Death of the Author’ in Stygall, G (2002). Academic Discourse: Readings for Argument and Analysis, Taylor and Francis: London.

Dunleavy, D. (2007). ‘The irony of art in a culture of appropriation’. Available at: http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/2007/12/the-irony-of-ar.html Accessed 20th February 2011

Evans, D. (2009). Appropriation. Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press: London/Massachusetts.

Irvin, S. (2005). ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 45, No. 2.

Kruger, B. (1999). Thinking of You. MIT Press: Massachusetts.

‘Mary Boone Gallery’ (2011) Available at: http://www.maryboonegallery.com/artist_info/pages/kruger/detail2.html Accessed 20th February 2011

Sandler, I. (1996). Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960’s to the Early 1990’s. Westview Press: Colorado.

Siegel, J. (1988). Art Talk: the Early 80’s. Di Capo Press: Michigan

Kennedy, R. (2007). ‘If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original?’. The New York Times [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1&ex=1197867600&en=ce95b8dd14df4dd8&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Accessed 28th February 2011

W Magazine. (2010). Available at: http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2010/11/kim_kardashian_queen_of_reality_tv_ss#slide=10 Accessed 22nd February 2011.


Endnotes

1.) Stiles, K (1996) Theories and documents of contemporary art: a sourcebook of artists' writings University of California Press: CA. p. 377

2.) Van Camp, J (2007) ‘Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art’ The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36: 4 p.247

3.) Schneider, A (2007) Appropriation as Practice. Art and Identity in Argentina, Palgrave Macmillan pp.24-5

4.) Sandler, I (1996) Art of the Postmodern Era: From the Late 1960’s to the Early 1990’s Westview Press: Colorado p. 321

5.) Image from ArtNet: Available at: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/walrobinson/walrobinson9-1-2.asp Accessed 28th Febuary 2011

6.) Moma Collection Online: Available at: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79766

7.) Irvin, S (2005) ‘Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art’ British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 45, No. 2, p. 123

8.) Barthes, R (1967) ‘The Death of the Author’ in Stygall, G (2002) Academic Discourse: Readings for Argument and Analysis, Taylor and Francis: London p. 102

9.) Ibid p.106

10.) Irvin, S (2005) p.123

11.) Van Camp (2007) p.248

12.) Ibid. p.250

13.) http://artisanhistory.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

14.) After Sherrie Levine by Jeanne Siegel (2001) Available at: www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html (Accessed 4th Feburary 2011)

15.) Siegel, J (1988) Art Talk: the Early 80’s Di Capo Press: Michigan p. 299

16.) Ibid, p. 303.

17.) Kruger, B (1999) Thinking of You MIT Press: Massachusetts p. 9.

18.) http://www.maryboonegallery.com/artist_info/pages/kruger/detail2.html

19.) http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2010/11/kim_kardashian_queen_of_reality_tv_ss#slide=10

20.) Sandler, I (1996) p.319.

21.) Evans, D. (Eds.) (2009) Appropriation Whitechapel Gallery/MIT Press: London/Massachusetts p. 12

22.) Sandler, I (1996) p. 326.

23.) http://ddunleavy.typepad.com/the_big_picture/2007/12/the-irony-of-ar.html

24.) Kennedy, R (2007) ‘If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original?’ The New York Times [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=1&ex=1197867600&en=ce95b8dd14df4dd8&ei=5070&emc=eta1 Accessed 28th Febuary 2010.

25.) Ibid.

Save Citation »  (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)

0 thoughts on “Originality In Art Essay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *