Week 6 - Authorship

Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife

Walker Evans

1936

After Walker Evans: 4

Sherrie Levine

1981

This weeks readings "The Death of the Author," by Roland Barthes and "Statement," by Sherrie Levine discussed topics of plagiarism and highlighted our personal thoughts on what we really believe is original. Is anything original? Barthes claims that it is not. If that is the case and nothing is original, it is not possible to plagiarize someones work. This is an interesting concept to me. In a past class, we discussed conceptual art and the way that the idea behind the art is really the art. I have never thought of it that way and was really turned off of it at first, but after some thought, I really believe that conceptual art is one of the coolest art styles. Now what does conceptual art have to do with the topics of originality and plagiarism? We will have to look at an artist I find quite interesting named Richard Prince. He is very similar in his ways compared to Sherrie Levine as he directly copied someone else's photos and claimed them as his own. In his case, he took digital photos of a magazine, and claimed that since he took them and zoomed in slightly, this was now his piece of art. Do I necessarily agree that is a moral thing to do? No. But once a photo is given to the public, it is free reign in my opinion. Prince's thought process and original idea is what had the most impact on me though. It made me sit with the thought that no one had thought to do this before. Conceptual art is a game of who can think so far outside the box yet make their art so common that it makes people not think that it is not art. These texts do not specifically discuss conceptual art, but it made me think about Richard Prince immediately.

Instead, Barthes talks mostly about authors and the relationship between them and their text. He states that once writing is written it cannot be taken back and will really never mean the same thing that the author intended ever again. When an individual reads text, they are bringing in their prior knowledge, experiences, and opinions into their understanding of the reading. Meaning no matter what the author originally intended, it will never mean that.

The idea that nothing is original, everything is a citation is very intriguing to me. I think Barthes means that all creative work is very heavily influenced by the art that was in the era before it. This really reflects the connection between culture and art, no matter where you are in the world. Even when we think we are being so original, we could often be just reinterpreting already made concepts and ideas. Not to say that art does not evolve over time, but there is definitely an argument for the non existing idea of originality.

Levine plagiarized Barthes to challenge his ideas of authorship and originality. By plagiarizing his work, she engaged with his ideas of "the death of the author" and played with the idea of creating through interpretation rather than intent. She tried to make people reevaluate the value we put on original work and the role of the artist. She was basically trying to make viewers ask themselves about authenticity and art in general. I find this very smart in a way because it was a very good way to grab peoples attention whether they liked her ideas or not.

Is it really being copied if it was never original? That is the question that I continue to ask myself very often and will continue to do so. We can often see contemporary art that blurs the lines between originality and influence, and we will definitely continue to see artists push the boundaries for better or for worse. It just depends on who you talk to.