The Case for Copying | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios 

"If you think about why any story moves us, it’s because of a quaking moment of recognition. It’s never the shock of the new, it’s the shock of the familiar." - Joshua Oppenheimer

whenever i start watching these videos i'm always skeptical and/or have zero feelings towards the theme. whenever i finish them, i'm so, so, into it. this is just to say that "the case for" continue to be my favorite type of video from TAA and i'm glad they're happening more :)

One of may favorite art professors in college told us that if we were going to steal someone else's idea, it was fine as long as we made it better. That was fifteen years ago. Looking back, I think he understood that ideas are borrowed and stolen all the time, but if we are going to steal an idea, we need to make it worth our time.

Don't mind me. Just here for a homework assignment. Gotta watch again cause it all just literally flew over my head.

My art history class recently discussed Sherrie Levine and someone said "if she would've taken a video and reuploaded it on RU-vid, it would've been swiftly taken down."

As much as I love watching videos of the art assignment, I genuinely think there's a need to space out the videos a little more. Every video is rushed and there's no space in between content or the voice over. Content needs to breathe. Please let the story sink in for the viewer.

good artists copy great artists steal - william warren 2017

I’ve officially seen every “the case for” episode. It’s my fave segment on this channel. Please keep ‘em coming!

In a lot of these artworks that you are citing, they aren't copies. They are reinterpretations. They are not simply reproducing the original. They are iterating on it. There is a marked difference between someone who essentially just reproduces a work and someone who uses it as a jumping off point.

Interesting but I'm concerned that we may not see the line between copying as described here, and actual literal plagiarism. I shouldn't be able to repaint an obscure masterpiece that already exists and make millions off it. I say this because a lot of the comments are saying "let's abolish copyright law" without really understanding why copyright law is there in the first place. I think this video could have benefited from a clearer explanation of the difference between copying as an art practice and actual fraud.

the 1974 Orson Welles film 'F for Fake' is very relevant to this idea. It's a kind of essay-documentary about art forgery, fakery and authenticity in general

I am going to have to watch this a few more times, I had a bit of a hard time keeping up all the way through!

When you take a break from your 3 Art History finals to watch The Art Assignment... Michel Foucault will follow me to my DEATH!

i don't know if it's just me but so much was being mention, so many images appearing and like no time to digest what the last sentence was talking about

This makes me think of the book “steal like an artist” it’s so very good. It hits a lot of similar points. It’s a very motivating little read. 💜

This reminds me of a friend who wants to direct movies but hasn’t written or filmed anything, after asking him why he said “I don’t want to do something that has been done before”. And while that’s a great thing to strive for it isn’t possible, everything has already been done, maybe not the exact way but in a similar one. I sent him TvTropes so he could see that in a way nothing is original, the way you put things together is

Interesting to watch this in 2022, in the middle of a raging debate over AI art.

This is why I think sampling is so important in music. It connects us to the past and creates threads of belonging.

the similar baseline of under pressure was such a great little detail to this video.

This is by far my favorite series that you do.

I am literally in the middle of an essay on the appropriation of greek art for my Ancient Greek Art Class (Cycladic Figures to Rule under Alexzander the Great is the window we are in.) Timel af. Thanks for making my break an informative and relevant one lol

This really didn't convince me of anything. Yes, copying has some very interesting implications, but there is a huge difference between transformative copying and literally copying that you don't address. If these people have done nothing transformative - merely added there name and allowed me to think about that choice until I decide upon its meaning, then though it is art, that person isn't the artist. You might say "that's the point" and, sure. So why are we paying them for it?

"In each picture there is always another picture"

Love love love these videos! Would love them more if they slowed down a bit, I feel like I'm missing so much!

I found this video so fascinating - I feel like I learnt so much watching it. Thanks to the whole team for your effort and insight.

The extremely relevant backtrack in this video really got me....

When the first atom popped into existence, it instantly made for an infinite amount of interpretations of it, possible.

This one really lost me, I find this topic inaccessible in a way that Art Assignment videos usually aren't.

This show is making me so pumped for the art history class I'm taking next year... I signed up mostly out of necessity, but now I'm really excited.

Taking an image and changing it in some way (adding, subtracting, coll-ageing) is one thing, but taking a photo of a photo and presenting it as "New" art "because I say so, it belongs to feminism now" is not. If someone made perfect copies of Harry Potter paperbacks, and started selling those copies of Harry Potter paperbacks, without touching the books in any way, with J.K. Rowling's name still on them, but said it was their book, "after J.K. Rowling", they would get the heck sued out of them, no amount of "but its appropriation art, I'm being deep." would change that.

Great video! This brings to mind Borges' short story Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote, where he discusses much of what was mentioned here -- building on Barthes' the Death of the Author theory, he analyses the premise of art as creating *meaning* rather than creating a *thing*. In that, copying or replicating almost becomes irrelevant and the artistic value shifts to the semantic value of the piece. First time commentator here. Love your work on this channel! :)

Nope, this video was a travesty. Everybody loves Roy Lichtenstein but few know who Russ Heath even was. He was the artist whose comics Liechtenstein stole from to make some of his most famous paintings. I get the "theoretical" case for copying, but what about the ethical case? Commercial artists, including comic book artists like Russ Heath, often struggled to make ends meet and (like Heath last August) died in obscurity, while a flat, soulless version of their work that *somebody else* got paid MILLIONS for hangs in the Tate Modern. The art that Pop Art appropriated may have been created with the intent of being mass produced, but the art itself is a unique object that came from some other artists' minds and labor, and respect should be paid to them. How about "The Case for Commercial Art", or "The Case for Sequential Art (Comics)"?

There seem to be a trend in the popular world to justify reusing old ideas, particularly in art and culture. Let's face it, when the goal is to make money, the best approach is to continue to do what works. New ideas are risky and most of the time doesn't make money. Copying as a tool to learn is different than copying because the artists is just unable to come up with new ideas.

Rauschnberg is my favourite artist. I have q few, basquiat another, but Robert raunchenberg is absolutely brilliant. As an artist/ illustrator i use some of his techniques in my drawings. Dave McKean Bill sienkiewicz, David mack all these artist ( comic book artist) inspired me to draw when i was younger (im 48) then i found raunchenberg when i went to art collage. Those comic book artist were all inspired by rauchenberg. His art just gives me the chills when i see it...smh he was uncanny.

I think it's unethical to copy someone else's work exactly or almost exactly and take credit for it. Plagiarism is wrong. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone taking a photo or painting and using it as inspiration to make a "copy" of it is a completely different style that is distinguishable from the original. For instance, I see nothing wrong with someone painting or drawing something they copied from a reference photo; because paintings and drawings are so different than photos. I see nothing wrong using a painting as a reference to make a different version of the same painting. For instance, I see nothing wrong with taking the Steven McCurry painting called "Afghan girl" and painting it in hyperrealism style (because although it looks similar a different method and medium were used), or cubism style, or impressionism style. I wouldn't see a problem with someone sketching it, or making a stained glass version of it, or making a sculpture of it. I guess those would all be examples of "copying" the photo; but, they wouldn't really be examples of plagiarism. Actually, I think taking someone's art and reinterpreting it is the highest form of compliment the artist of the original piece can get. Every artist wants to inspire creativity in others. In my opinion, Sherry Levine plagiarized Walker Evans work. I don't really know how she copied his photos; but, it looks like Levine took Walker's photo of the woman, shown at the start of this video, and just photoshopped a little hair over the tiny thinning part she has on the left side of where her hair is parted. Other than that, the photo looks exactly the same. However, Velazquez, Bacon, and Picasso definitely didn't plagiarize the images they "copied;" they just used them as a jumping point and made them their own. Similarly, if someone does a cover of a song in the same style as the original, and they even try to impersonate the original singer by copying his voice, and then they tell people the song is their own, that's unethical. Yet, if a woman takes a heavy metal song, sang by a man, and turns it into a pop style song with a rap interlude, and changes the pace of the song a little, she isn't attempting to steal the singer's song, she is simply putting her own flare on a cover of that singer's song.

I am an artist and I am against copying. Why would an artist purposefully deny himself/herself the euphoria generated by creation? Why would you be socially percieved as "the copycat" instead of "the unique and iconic artist"? It's as if one would purposefully walk outside in public with stinky garbage stuck on his/her clothing, as if one has no dignity and wants to ruin his/her public image by doing something so low class as copying is. Would that be purposeful or artistic? I really doubt that. Allright, copying a work to improve technique is one thing, I don't do it, but for those who do it, afterwards,please, just burn it! Out of respect for the original artist and the original work, seriously!

I'd like to hear more about "copy art" and its conflicts with copyright.

"Artists don't just imitate the world, they imitate each other." They also don't just imitate each other. They grow and form a unique voice. Many of the examples you show here have one artist using the other as a starting point, for a composition or some such, but the final work becomes distinct, unique. Can you say that about Jack Goldstein's Lion or Levine's copy of Evans? Is there any discernible "shift in context"? I don't see why you're even putting Picasso and Levine in the same argument. They certainly don't belong together. You say it brings into question the importance of authorship. Does it? Isn't that a rather shallow question? We already know that the dollar value of an artwork is arbitrary and based greatly on fashion trends that change like the wind. The intrinsic value of an artwork exists independently of the author - that kind of value is also a bit arbitrary, weighed independently in the mind of each viewer, although we must admit, many people will hold similar opinions based on the skill, quality, concept, etc. of the work. Knowing the author gives insight into the history behind the work and the movements involved. In that sense it adds historical value and knowledge. But, so far as credit, there's no question. The first artist deserves the credit. The copyist shouldn't consider himself an artist at all, unless he/she adds something substantial. So far as calling history's greatest artists "so called geniuses" whose works only seem to be authentic, having little do with genius and everything to do with power structures? What? Really? Originality is a myth? It sounds like you're asking me not to believe my own lying eyes. Perhaps we define originality differently. It seems the standard you hold is unfair, especially when it casts all artists in the same lot with Levine.

Thanks, this is great. I’m going to share with my high school art students. I made them a slide show on postmodernism and this has many of the same topics covered. Well researched , well put!

The subtle Under Pressure/Ice Ice baby was a really nice touch! Although would it have been better to maybe put it torwards the end as if it's a punchline to a joke or do you think it would've drawn away from the closing statement? I'd love to hear peoples thoughts on this

I think it's ok as long as we give credit or compensation. Borrowing from others is ok, we do it all the time but copying the exact same artwork without modifications and passing it off as your own is theft and plagiarism. If you get permission from the original artist and if you give him or her credit and/or compensation then it's ok. If I saw someone making millions off of my photography and passing it off as his own I would be pissed!

that was great thanks so much. I hope that one day I'll be able to explain things like this just like you. Make people understand the supposedly dumb and crazy side of art isn't as dumb as it seems

Damn, this was amazing. I will have to return to it again and again to absorb it fully and I tots look forward to it!

i think getting inspiration from art work is okay and good ( thats how we progress) but completely stealing another artist work is not.

What Picasso did was NOT copying, it was re-interpreting. I agree with that, but NEVER with Sherrie Levine's shameless and disgusting copying and claiming as her own.

Wow - what a great case for remix culture! We are a new series on PBS Digital Studios getting started and we're all about media literacy and inquiry...would be fun to collab with you all some day. You're an inspiration!

Thank you so much for this! Beautifully put together Joanna Fiduccia 💕

I'm just bursting with commentary steam here; First off, the word Art is used here ( duh, of course) but, all of the art shown in this video is painting, photography and sculpture. And, I guess, printmaking. A lot of faces, portraits of groups, figures, scenes, labels, texts and other trappings of the generally realist realm of art. When I was young, I was lucky to work in the Art Gallery of Ontario. One of the world's better places, I'd say. I used to roam the rooms and stare at work. Now, how about Jules Olitski, Jack Bush, Helen Frankenthaler, Georgia O'Keefe, Yves Gauche, just to name a few. These painters were more original, I think, because they were either doing completely abstract work or interpreting images in a really different way. No shock of the familiar, no twists on previous issues of classic themes. How about Dennis Oppenheim? I saw his show and was blown away by its originality. My own work, often, takes it's realism from initially dripping and splattering paint so I never know what images might emerge. And they don't rely on the cavalcade of presidents, movie star's faces, famous battle scenes or other repetitive themes. I have great respect for Cindy Sherman. However, when I saw her big show at the AGO I thought, well, it looks kind of easy. A pretty woman's face, a context, a slice of life; it's going to look good no matter what. Is realism ever really that interesting? I think distortions of reality are valid, too. Norval Morriseau, Dali, other surrealists, and abstract expressionists who invented their own distinctly different ways to paint. This video uses examples that start from a camera in many cases. I think the most over- used tool of the artist is the camera. It's a second- rate version of your own two eyes. Cameras don't have brains attached. Photographs are flat, dead 2 dimensional versions of the past. How about performance art? When I went to art college, also in Toronto, I personally surmised that the toughest art forms are painting watercolour ( because it's so damned hard to keep them controlled and loose and fresh and finished, etc) and performance art. In Toronto's Nuit Blanche a few years back, I saw some brilliant interactive installations. I think there's more originality in some other forms of art, besides the stuff that hangs on the wall easily, and/ or presents a pretty close version of reality to the viewer. I think a lot of art is not much more than pages from a magazine. How about the minimalist work of Donald Judd? Noguchi? Those are just some of my thoughts on originality. But I did enjoy the video. I'm just weary of familiar things, like human faces. Too many people. We're pretty similar. Move on. Let's have, at least, some less familiar body parts. Any elbow paintings out there?

Standing on the shoulders of those who came before. It's how knowledge is created.

interesting to see how this video has aged since it's release, considering that Jay Z and Beyonce released a collaborative music video titled "ape sh**" almost bringing to life the exact concept of the dancing at the louvre piece by Faith Ringgold.

Through this whole video I was thinking "meme culture meme culture meme culture." Especially RU-vid poop. I'm not claiming that YTP is great art but that a lot of these great art examples seem to be visual or physical prototypes of the kind of meaningless absurd remixing that YTP survives on. I wasn't expecting the really good point about who, culturally, gets to be named vs who has to be anonymous!

This is my favorite video which shows why AI art continues this wonderful tradition of art history :D

Eye-opening video! Very well explained. Thanks.

0:43 Legally declared copyright infringement, if I'm not mistaken.

See Austin Kleon's "Steal Like an Artist"

I love these informative videos soooo much. I could watch a 1,000 more. Thank you.

It’s a shame you forgot to credit Drew Struzan at 9:53 for the Back to the Future image. Struzan is an immensely prolific talented fine artist and really nice guy that gave us such iconic images as for Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Blade Runner (to name but a few) plus more classic album covers in an era when painting was a valued skill even in the commercial world. The documentary about his life and career in the movie poster / music business is well worth watching.

O really enjoyed that. It reminded me of my days at Pratt and nyu

this video was flagged for copyright infringement. all the money will now go to MGM

I’ve been thinking about this topic for a long time now. I’d like to read more about it. Do you have sources or books listed, which helped you for this video?

As has been said by Artist, Philosophers, and the like "Art is anything you can get away with". So Weather your Copying, Barrowing, Stealing it is what it is. The difference is the ability, time, public viewpoint, the law combined with the media and politics the determined wherewithal and energy to force action in the direction one or both determine.

I bet someone's gonna take advantage of this fact...and saying "I'm not copying!! it's Appropriation art"...

I want to see someone do like an Artist/Philosopher video. I know in the Analytic Tradition Wittgenstein did Photography and Architecture after doing his Tractautus. Decades later Nelson Goodman did a contemporary dance work challenging the distinction between art and sport in Hockey: A Nightmare in 3 Periods and Sudden Death, after doing The Languages of Art and The Ways of Worldmaking. Nietzsche composed music that has been played by others in addition to constructing an new Zarathustra in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

The printing press shown at 4:49 appears to be a rotary press, which has a cylindrical surface, and not as stated a "flatbed press". Per Encyclopedia Britannica, a flatbed press is a "... printing press employing a flat surface for the type or plates against which paper is pressed, either by another flat surface acting reciprocally against it or by a cylinder rolling over it. It may be contrasted to the rotary press (q.v.), which has a cylindrical printing surface. ...".

This is a reaallly good channel. And so humble!

This explains why I have always been ambivalent about Richard Prince's work. His view of advertising art is very different from mine. I see advertising as art stripped of the majority of its context(s), with only those remaining which (in the eyes of the ads designers) are relevant to selling the product.

Copying one's work is okay, but tracing amd claiming it as your own is an irredeemable crime, unless its paper dolls.

This reminds of why I enjoy the music genre 'vaporwave' lots, my friends just think I'm a bit of a loser/pretentious hipster that has taken a 'meme' too far, mainly because it is just slowed down music, (well it depends, some has more added to it than just some slowing down) but even as slowed down music there's something interesting to be said about it's re-contextualising of music from 'the past', which what copying is able to do

Any good recommendations for accessible art history books that give depth of context?

Great job but maybe I'm just old but I think it would be better if you slowed your cadence about 15%- pause between sentences

Now I know why the urinal was popular years ago. I'm rather art illiterate and I really enjoy these "The Case" videos.

This was great! I was wondering what your thoughts for Commentary as art are. For example, food critics and makeup reviews and reaction videos...

Welcome to 2022! I'm late for this party but perhaps someone is still listening? A few comments mentioned how this video seemed rushed. I agree. The content is facinating but it should have and could have been discussed in an hour (2 hours?) That is a common theme with RU-vid: everyone rushing to get there content out. Process has been shot in the barn like a lame horse, and outcome in this day in age is the corrupt emperor with no cloths. Perhaps this will be the epitaph of western civilization? Or perhaps stated by a rushed eulogier: The west died a quick death: process took its revenge, as it does often with empires who use art to line pockets and not educate or inform.

Saying that works of ancient art are somehow oppressive of the people who created because they are unsigned or the artists are unknown is disingenuous--they were created in a time and a culture when artists did not sign their works, because their works were not objects of self-aggrandizement or individual expression, but were in most cases religious or ritual objects, and signing them would have been seen as blasphemous and an act of hubris. We don't know those artists because they didn't WANT to be known, NOT because of some vast "Western Supremacy Conspiracy"...

Francis Ford Coppola said once that he didn’t care if people tried to copy his work, because bu the time it was actually made into something it would take on a life of it’s own. This is not always the case and you can steal, but there is an obvious line between plagiarism and inspiration. Not all forms are created equal so some are more prone to being copied without taking on a new life, but for the most part what he said, I agree with and even when someone isn’t putting in their own spin, simply doing the work can encourage them to take the next step and make it their own. This is all different from pathological intellectual theft and forgery, though. Those are different.

the academic tone of these videos really helps sell the death of art as progress

I like this series but there is something in the way the contents are read (maybe too fast, no pauses?) that make them very difficult to follow for over a few minutes especially for non English mother tongue audiences.

6:48 "Rosler just reassembled what was already bound together in the magazine, and what only a serious threshold for cognitive dissonance holds apart" This is a beautiful sentence, but I just can't wrap my head around the meaning. Is this referring to how when looking at those separate images in the magazine, people could rationalize the two wildly different scenes co-existing through cognitive dissonance, but it's Roslers juxtaposition of the two that forces the viewer to accept the reality of both situations? I'm so confused

I enjoyed this but I wish it was done at about half speed. It went so fast it hardly seemed like she drew a breath. You need to be able to process the words you hear AND process the images you see at the same time.

I love your videos! Greetings from Brazil! ;-)

I spent 5 years in art college, and I always felt art history, or rather art criticism, was pseudo-intellectual BS, and this video reinforces that opinion for me. I understand that the invention of the camera was a catastrophe for the visual arts, but to react by gaslighting everyone with this kind of pretentious patter was never an answer.

Most How to Paint a Portrait videos on RU-vid are actually How to Copy Photograph.

I would have loved more discussion on the controversy surrounding these instances of copying eg. Prince's ig exhibition. ps. There is a missing caption on one of your images. It is a gallery photo from the Gottfried Lindauer exhibition "The Māori Portaits" held at Auckland Art Gallery - Toi o Tamaki in 2016/17.

I love this channel but the content sometimes is a bit too fast especially when there are loads of concepts to be digested. Maybe you could slow down a bit in future productions and allow people to speed up using the RU-vid playback speed if needed.

If you can't tell the difference between an original image being photographed, and an original image being done in a completely different style, then something is wrong with you.

Back then artists did copy but they made their own changes. As for modern artist, they just copy .

Pieces of art are instruments of perception. Taste, sample, riff, but don't gobble unless you can bring something new to the work.

Love love love the art assignment - and this is probably my favourite case for. Just wondering if the art assignment had a reading list of accessible and modern texts if we wanted to know more? Thanks

Copying is a good learning tool.

holy shit maan im never looking at art the same way again

Interesting topic,well presented! Thanks

i love this, thank you so much!

Breaking copyright law will cost you.

great video! love your The Case for series

For some reason, this concept doesn't sit right with me. She's literally copying it off and saying that what I am doing is art. We can't convince that to others if we take the same intention and do what she did. Imagine how many artists, who don't know of this concept, will keep attacking you for art theft, especially on the internet since it is quiet an big issue these days. It'll take years and years to keep telling people that what you're doing isn't the type of "copying" that people are assuming it to be. I'm trying so hard to understand this concept but I just can't seem to understand and appreciate it in any shape or form. I do however think it's OK to use those already-made art as a reference for creating your own work. Like did she even ask the artists who she plagiarized from for their permission when working on these piece.. Girl I-

I'm sure this has been said before, but the fact that the science philosopher Francis Bacon and the British modern artist Francis Bacon have not a thing in common is wild.

My FAVORITE new page. Wonderful historical analysis. Love it.

Art is the shit man..

Thank you for your video! Where can I find the references used to make it?

Very interesting video content, but at very fast pace, if you slow down will be great resource of art history. Great job anyway👌