Re-Contextualizing Well-known Cultural Artifacts vs. Ambiguous Appropriation

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28kennedy.html?_r=0

Is there a difference between re-conceptualizing well-known cultural artifacts and ambiguous appropriation?  Is the later too vague and inconspicuous?  Dishonest?

This conflict remains not far from my mind when using appropriation methods in my own work.  This NY Times article maintains that it is certainly on the mind of many others when Warhol’s soup cans are accepted and Helene Hegemann’s book is rejected.

Hegemann’s book borrows from many other literary artists and writers, including famous individuals as well as bloggers.  Those who were appropriated didn’t seem to mind but others are worried this is the beginning of a slippery slope.

With all the information now readily available to anyone surely supports this sort of thing will only increase so maybe it’s time to accept it and appreciate it as it won’t be going away anytime soon.  From my perspective, the possibility of expanding copyright laws could only harm artists who aim to critique.

Essay/Article Response