STANDARDS

Core Art Standards: VA1, VA7, VA9

CCSS: R1, R3, W4

How to Appropriately Appropriate

Where is the line between inspiration and plagiarism?

March / April 2023

Have you ever come across an image you really liked and even felt inspired to use in your own artwork? You’re not alone. Artists throughout history have found inspiration in other artists’ and designers’ work. But there are differences among inspiration, appropriation, and plagiarism. Read on to learn about artists who push boundaries, thinking about what counts as appropriation and what’s going too far.

Have you ever felt inspired to use someone else’s image in your own artwork? Artists have always found inspiration in other artists’ work. But there are differences among inspiration, appropriation, and plagiarism. Read on to learn about artists who have experimented with appropriation.

KEY IDEAS

Borrowing compositional elements from other works of art is usually acceptable as long as they are reinvented, personalized, or transformed into something new.
Appropriation is the use of a preexisting image as one’s own. Many scholars consider appropriation acceptable when the artist credits the original creator and recontextualizes the image or invites viewers to consider it in a new way.
When someone copies part or all of an artwork without giving credit to the original artist, it is considered plagiarism.

KEY IDEAS

Borrowing details from other works is usually acceptable. The key is to reinvent or transform the image into something new.
Appropriation is when an artist uses an image that already exists in a new work. Many experts say this is OK if the artist credits the original creator and reinterprets the image.
When someone copies part or all of an artwork without giving credit to the original artist, it’s considered plagiarism.

A Classic Reimagined

Spanish artist Diego Velázquez painted Las Meninas, above left, in 1656. Centuries later, Pablo Picasso, another Spanish painter, borrowed visual details from Velázquez’s work to create his 1957 Las Meninas (Infanta Margarita María), above right.

Picasso re-creates the portrait of a young girl in the center of Velázquez’s painting. Velázquez uses almost invisible brushstrokes and quiet colors in his realistic portrait. Picasso uses bright colors, loose brushstrokes, and exaggerated shapes. The connection between the two paintings is clear, but Picasso’s artwork is original.

Spanish artist Diego Velázquez painted Las Meninas, above left, in 1656. Centuries later, in 1957, Pablo Picasso, another Spanish painter, borrowed visual elements of Velázquez’s renowned work to create Las Meninas (Infanta Margarita María), above right.

Picasso re-creates the portrait of a young girl in the center of Velásquez’s composition, capturing her pose. But Picasso uses his own artistic vocabulary and color palette. In Velázquez’s portrait, the rendering is realistic, with subtle brushwork and muted colors. Picasso uses bright colors, loose brushstrokes, and exaggerated shapes. The relationship between the two paintings is clear, but Picasso’s reinterpretation is uniquely his.

Comments on Culture

In the 1960s, when advertising, consumerism, and mass-produced products were at the forefront of American culture, Andy Warhol began appropriating images from advertising and pop culture.

The design on Warhol’s 1968 Tomato, above, looks like a real can of Campbell’s soup would have in 1968. But Warhol reimagines the image as two-dimensional. Warhol uses a silkscreen printing technique to render a can of Campbell’s tomato soup. The process allowed him to easily create many versions of the print. By using this technique and appropriating the Campbell’s soup label design, Warhol comments on mass production and consumer culture.

In 1960s America, companies were making large amounts of products. And advertisements helped sell them. Around the same time, Andy Warhol began appropriating images from brands and ads in his artwork.

The design on Warhol’s 1968 Tomato, above, looks just like a can of Campbell’s soup did at the time. Warhol’s silkscreen printing method made it easy to create many versions of this work. Warhol appropriates the Campbell’s soup label over and over again to make a statement about American culture at the time.

Photograph of a Photo

In the 1970s and ’80s, Sherrie Levine began experimenting to see how far she could take appropriation. She photographed images from commerce and art history. The resulting photographs are hers, but the images she captures were originally composed by other artists.

In her 1981 After Walker Evans: 4, above, Levine photographed a reproduction in an exhibition catalogue showing an artwork by Walker Evans. Evans’s original portrait explores the life of a Depression-era sharecropper. Levine acknowledges in her title that her photograph is of Evans’s work. But instead of considering the woman in Evans’s photograph—as Evans does—Levine uses her reproduction to raise questions about originality, authorship, and ownership. Evans’s image is reproduced as his own in books all the time. Levine also reproduces his image but takes credit for having done so.

“It is something that artists do all the time unconsciously, working in the style of someone they consider a great master,” Levine explains. “I just wanted to make that relationship literal.”

In the 1970s and ’80s, Sherrie Levine began playing with appropriation. She would take photographs of photographs. The photographs are hers, but the images she took pictures of were originally taken by other artists.

In her 1981 After Walker Evans: 4, above, Levine photographed a copy of a Walker Evans portrait. It shows a sharecropper from the Great Depression. Levine credits Evans in the title of her photo. The title shifts the focus away from the woman in the photo. Instead, Levine raises questions about what it means to make something that is original. Evans’s photograph is reproduced, and credited as his own, in books all the time. Levine also reproduces his photograph, but she takes credit for doing it.