Sherrie Levine

User Removed · May 27, 2007

Sparky said:
Yeah I think I got it, Ryan - I just hijacked your ASCII to make the point about da Vinci vs. Levine.

I'm not sure what a ASCII is, but whatever. Okay.

Sparky · May 27, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
I'm not sure what a ASCII is, but whatever. Okay.

text.

User Removed · May 27, 2007

Sparky said:
text.

Oh! Haha. Okay. That's fine. I will do the same right back to you

You should have called your post "after Ryan McIntosh"

Sparky · May 27, 2007

kjsphoto said:
In reference to me you make no sense at all and it just show your lack of maturity and I will accept your apology later.

Though - I will admit (since I'm trying to support the idea of honesty here) - that when I landed on your site, Kevin, I hit the landscape page and didn't see the other stuff... so my comment wasn't ENTIRELY true or fair.

kjsphoto · May 27, 2007

Sparky said:
Well - I'm really not sure what you mean, Kevin. You're pointing the finger at Levine and accusing her of ripping off someone else - when, in fact - she is doing QUITE the opposite (except on the most superficial of all levels-you'd have to be a PRETTY shallow person to even START to think she's trying to ride on Walker Evans, or others' coattails). You have the nerve to make a moral judgement against Levine - but looking at your own 'work' - all I see is ansel adams books. Let's be a little bit honest here, please. I am only asking you to take responsibility for you (irresponsible) invective. If you're going to level a moral judgement on something you'd better be careful to have a clean slate yourself, it seems to me.

I call it as I see it. I go to a place, see something I like and photograph it. She goes to a store, buys a poster and copies it then puts it on display. I got my morals in check thank you very much. I don't believe stealing is art period and I am standing by what I said.

And at the same time I do respect your opinions and have no ill will towards you for the negative comments towards me.

User Removed · May 27, 2007

kjsphoto said:
She goes to a store, buys a poster and copies it then puts it on display.

Like someone has stated above, the PROCESS of how she creates the work is not important and is really totally irrelevant to the concept and deeper meaning of the work.

jstraw · May 27, 2007

Kevin, I think Levine is playing a facile parlor trick. Warhol commented on the images and the culture they came from. Levine is only engaged in a meta-discussion about art itself. It's a sort of semantic game. It's way over your head, you're bogged down in dismissing the fact that she's using another photographer's work and unable to take in the fact that she couldn't engage in the conceptualism she's on about without doing so. It's part and parecel of the whole point. It's a tiny point that she's making but I suppose someone had to make it, get some ink, excite some critical frenzy or derision and make a few bucks. I think it's a yawn, in it's specifics but it's an inevitable part of the ongoing conversation regarding the scope and purpose of art.

Curt · May 27, 2007

Sherrie Levine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you call what she does art?

If yes, why?

http://www.aftersherrielevine.com/

I think it is nothing more than plagiarism and I think it is wrong.

Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own without adequate acknowledgment. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.

The definition of Art can be subjective so I move on to the next concept.

Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?

Mr. Hicks might be able to help us out here.

Sparky · May 27, 2007

kjsphoto said:
I call it as I see it. I go to a place, see something I like and photograph it. She goes to a store, buys a poster and copies it then puts it on display. I got my morals in check thank you very much. I don't believe stealing is art period and I am standing by what I said.

And at the same time I do respect your opinions and have no ill will towards you for the negative comments towards me.

Well- to me, Kevin - if you look at it on that level - you're plagiarizing ilford - since you just go to the store, buy the stuff, put it in the soup and then frame it and try to call it your own. Levine is using others' work on the same level that we, as photographers, use light-sensitive materials. I hope that makes sense. I'm sorry for what appear to be 'personal' comments - but I was trying to force you to take responsibility for your own comments. That being said - I also think you're quite talented as a photographer, and have some good stuff. Just understand I wasn't trying to dismiss the quality of your work - so much as get you to understand that there are different mindsets out there.

Sparky · May 27, 2007

Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?

Levine DID take certain measures in trying to ensure the reproduction was QUITE apparent as well. At least with the Evans photo. It's clearly something like a 3rd or 4th generation copy, and lower in contrast (this is what I heard - cannot personally verify), etc...

blaze-on · May 27, 2007

Damn...
I need to appropriate me some of that thar art from somewheres...I feel a callin ' to make a statement...

User Removed · May 27, 2007

Sparky said:
Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?

Levine DID take certain measures in trying to ensure the reproduction was QUITE apparent as well. At least with the Evans photo. It's clearly something like a 3rd or 4th generation copy, and lower in contrast (this is what I heard - cannot personally verify), etc...

Yes. She did very much so. I've seen her photograph of "After Edward Weston" done of his son Neil in person. Edwards image first started as a copy negative, since the original was a small negative (1st generation away from original), then from that print it was reproduced as a low quality poster for one of Weston exhibit's (2nd generation), the poster was found by Levine and photographed (3rd generation), then it was printed from her negative.

Looking at the Levine's original print, it's blurry and soft, the shadows are blocked up solid black, the highlights are all washed out and the cropping is even abit different.

User Removed · May 27, 2007

blaze-on said:
Damn...
I need to appropriate me some of that thar art from somewheres...I feel a callin ' to make a statement...

You have one of my prints...feel free to appropriate it all you like! Just make sure you have a really strong concept to back yourself up!

Curt · May 27, 2007

E. Weston, Strand, et al, made in camera copies to enlarge their work for contact printing in a larger size. Who knows how many generations they went through, what processes, and what methods were used.

And I used to think they were originals!

Sparky · May 27, 2007

Curt said:
E. Weston, Strand, et al, made in camera copies to enlarge their work for contact printing in a larger size. Who knows how many generations they went through, what processes, and what methods were used.

And I used to think they were originals!

Wouldn't an 'original' be simply something issued by the 'original' artist?

Curt · May 27, 2007

Wouldn't an 'original' be simply something issued by the 'original' artist?

Not that many photographers are original but it is true that any number of original performances of the score are possible. That's a good point.

Curt

jovo · May 27, 2007

Composers have appropriated the music of others as well as themselves since forever, and made original new work as a consequence. Pieces of that kind are often encountered as 'variations on a theme of...'. Ms. Levine's work seems more akin to performance...i.e....one purchases a piece of 'sheet music', learns to play/sing it, and perform it. It then becomes the performers' music in that they've made it unique by offering what no one else can...their own 'voice' which is commonly regarded as an interpretation. But her work adds no such discernible contribution.

The issue, as I see it, is that such a performance makes sense in a temporal medium, but not in a concrete one. Temporally, there can be an infinite variety of nuances that are injected by the force of the interpreter's 'voice' making its utterance in the moment. In Levine's work, there's no creative force...no collaboration between composer and performer that enobles the original by the imagination of the interpreter. It's an experiment that completely fails in my view.

Jim Chinn · May 27, 2007

This discussion reminds me of a famous quote by T.S. Eliiot: "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal."

I am not a big fan of her work, but incorporating the ideas of others or appropriating or copying has a long tradition in art. Warhol "stole" the image for Green Car Crash from a newspaper (just sold at auction for around $80 million IIRC) and while not using a photograph, he made money for himself and future speculators by copying Campbell Soup cans. I Don't think the original designer or firm made anything from the endeavor.

Sparky · May 27, 2007

Jim Chinn said:
I am not a big fan of her work, but incorporating the ideas of others or appropriating or copying has a long tradition in art. Warhol "stole" the image for Green Car Crash from a newspaper (just sold at auction for around $80 million IIRC) and while not using a photograph, he made money for himself and future speculators by copying Campbell Soup cans. I Don't think the original designer or firm made anything from the endeavor.

Can I ask if you think they should have? I mean - do you and Jovo and others here REALLY think that warhol was thinking...

"wow... the design of the campbell's soup can is REALLY BRILLIANT... and if I could just find a way of stealing the image - I could capitalize on the innate beauty of the can - and people would pay millions for it - !!" - ?

Do you really think that's what's going on here?

Jovo - as for your statement - I would exchange the 'temporality' you refer to and swap that out with 'context of the discussion happening within the art community' - and therein lies the contribution. You're looking a little too closely at it... you might want to step back a bit. But anyway- I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears.

NOTE: I'm not trying to be populist when I say this... I'm not saying it's GOOD work or 'brilliant' or anything. I'm NOT supporting it at all. But I AM supporting it's right to exist. I think it's INTERESTING work - and I think it's VERY important in it's contribution to our culture. That's all.

jstraw · May 27, 2007

Sparky said:
Can I ask if you think they should have? I mean - do you and Jovo and others here REALLY think that warhol was thinking...

"wow... the design of the campbell's soup can is REALLY BRILLIANT... and if I could just find a way of stealing the image - I could capitalize on the innate beauty of the can - and people would pay millions for it - !!" - ?

Do you really think that's what's going on here?

Jovo - as for your statement - I would exchange the 'temporality' you refer to and swap that out with 'context of the discussion happening within the art community' - and therein lies the contribution. You're looking a little too closely at it... you might want to step back a bit. But anyway- I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears.

NOTE: I'm not trying to be populist when I say this... I'm not saying it's GOOD work or 'brilliant' or anything. I'm NOT supporting it at all. But I AM supporting it's right to exist. I think it's INTERESTING work - and I think it's VERY important in it's contribution to our culture. That's all.

Speaking for myself only, I think that Warhols was sort of thinking that in a way...among other things.

I think he celebrated popular culture, I think he liked elevating the mundane, I think he found the mundane beautiful and I think he liked feeding people crap and having them ask for seconds.

Sparky · May 27, 2007

jstraw said:
Speaking for myself only, I think that Warhols was sort of thinking that in a way...among other things.

I think he celebrated popular culture, I think he liked elevating the mundane, I think he found the mundane beautiful and I think he liked feeding people crap and having them ask for seconds.

Yeah maybe - except I think he probably thought he was subverting it ENOUGH to make it that way. On some level. I used to disdain warhol... though he's been growing on me a bit - perhaps the more I learn about the specific frame of reference of the culture - and what he was up against. I tend to be a bit anti-populist in my leanings though (i.e. - it took me a long time to like U2 as a band). But anyway.

My POINT, however - was to suggest that the strength of warhol or levine wasn't so much a referent to the original work, so much as "look at me... I'm such a bad boy/girl and I'm getting away with appropriating this other work and signing it even..." - sorry - awkwardly phrased - but I'm sure you get my drift.

blaze-on · May 28, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
You have one of my prints...feel free to appropriate it all you like! Just make sure you have a really strong concept to back yourself up!

"I own...therefore I art"

Roger Hicks · May 28, 2007

My first wife Cath Milne -- no mean artist herself -- used to collect books where all you needed to read was the title: the content was so predictable that it was in effect redundant.

A lot of conceptual art, and meta-art, and the like, seems to me to be the same way. At most, it needs to be done once -- R. Mutt's famous urinal -- and often it doesn't need to be done at all: merely communicating the idea (verbally) is sufficient.

Pop art was a sort of half-way house, where ideas could be re-used -- but most people have to think REALLY HARD to remember anything more than Campbell's Soup and Marilyn from Warhol. I preferred Liechtenstein's comic-book stuff anyway -- and Senggye Ar Born has done some excellent work in the same vein.

Op art (think Bridget Riley) had, for me, tipped over into the purely intellectual. It was sometimes interesting illustration or decoration, but for me it was hardly art because it had nowhere to go -- rather like a lot of concrete poetry from the same era.

Then again, there are two sorts of artists. Those who are always trying something new, and those who do the same thing again and again. The latter are often more commercially successful because they're easier to understand, and because their work is often more decorative (think Alma-Tadema) but the former are often more interesting, at least to me. Then again, being 'interesting' doesn't mean that their work is something I would necessarily want to live with.

Is Levine's work plagiarism? Not exactly. But it's an idea that has, I think, been beaten to death -- at which point, for me, it's not exactly art either,

Cheers,

Roger

Jim Chinn · May 28, 2007

No,I don't think the originators of the soup can logo/design deserve anything. I guess my point with the Eliot quote is that artists have stolen ideas and techniques from each other for centuries. It was often seen as more a form of flatery rather then outright copying. Walk through a bunch of galleries in NY and it does not take long to find people still making a lot of money making derivitives of drip paintings, field paintings and still using cubist ideas.

Anyway, as with all art, the marketplace is the final arbitor of what is valued. One thing you will notice is that the art world does not pay great prices for photographs made by photographers. They will pay huge sums for work created by artists who sometimes use photography in their art. Richard Prince is a good example. He works in a lot of other mediums besides photography. For Warhol, a photograph was simply the starting point to get the his final silkscreen creations.

jstraw · May 28, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
My first wife Cath Milne -- no mean artist herself -- used to collect books where all you needed to read was the title: the content was so predictable that it was in effect redundant.

A lot of conceptual art, and meta-art, and the like, seems to me to be the same way. At most, it needs to be done once -- R. Mutt's famous urinal -- and often it doesn't need to be done at all: merely communicating the idea (verbally) is sufficient.

Pop art was a sort of half-way house, where ideas could be re-used -- but most people have to think REALLY HARD to remember anything more than Campbell's Soup and Marilyn from Warhol. I preferred Liechtenstein's comic-book stuff anyway -- and Senggye Ar Born has done some excellent work in the same vein.

Op art (think Bridget Riley) had, for me, tipped over into the purely intellectual. It was sometimes interesting illustration or decoration, but for me it was hardly art because it had nowhere to go -- rather like a lot of concrete poetry from the same era.

Then again, there are two sorts of artists. Those who are always trying something new, and those who do the same thing again and again. The latter are often more commercially successful because they're easier to understand, and because their work is often more decorative (think Alma-Tadema) but the former are often more interesting, at least to me. Then again, being 'interesting' doesn't mean that their work is something I would necessarily want to live with.

Is Levine's work plagiarism? Not exactly. But it's an idea that has, I think, been beaten to death -- at which point, for me, it's not exactly art either,

Cheers,

Roger

Excellent post, Roger. I'd offer up the notion that cultural evolution, not unlike biological evolution, produces a lot of cul de sacs. Dead ends are dead ends but they're only known to be so because someone ventured there. All exploration has value.

Sherrie Levine

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency