Most of this is recontextualisation, not appropriation. Even the Lichtenstein is covertly ironic. The creativity isn't just in the imagery and the technique, it's in making a statement about the surrounding culture.<p>AI doesn't recontextualise, it reproduces cliches. You could argue that AI itself is an original artwork. But its output is backward- and inward-looking, not forward-looking. It tries to reproduce work from the past in a very literal way, mostly for users who are culturally naive and think art is about pictures, not about cultural, emotional, perceptual, and psychological insights.
“Appropriation” has been a technical term in art criticism distinct from “cultural appropriation”. “Cultural appropriation” which is what “appropriation” typically refers to in today’s mainstream discourse.<p>The art term is neutral. The cultural term is negative. Modern and contemporary art is plausibly rife with cultural appropriation, often coinciding with typical artistic “appropriation”, and this essay doesn’t engage with that issue, and its lack of acknowledgement of the imminent confusion is puzzling.
I’d like to see this argument in the context of music.<p>Not just samples, in their contemporary usage, which has been thoroughly discussed.<p>I think of the best and most memorable melodies that I sing from church hymnals, or in pop music - which often come from classical compositions.<p>Like “Thaxted”, which comes from Gustav’s Planets.<p>Or Celine Dion’s “All By Myself”, which comes from Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor.<p>Or the theme from the movie Babe, which comes from a reggae song that reused the melody from Saint-Saen’s Symphony 3
Sone examples shown are better described as Détournement, but maybe Appropriation is more neutral and generalist. In any case copying is the most basic tool in the creation process. Some artists show they copy, others artists lie about the source of their "inspiration".<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tournement" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tournement</a>
Just speaking from a hip-hop perspective;<p>Appropriation is stealing well.<p>Good stealing is obvious, fair, resonant, clever, unexpected and
pointed.<p>Since the appropriation is part of the art it needs to be up front.
Don't be obscure, or try too hard to hide the grab. Even better if
it's audacious.<p>There is a sense of fairness amongst artists. Stealing a well known
icon is okay, but to take the riff of rival, little known artist is
plagiarism.<p>There must be a cultural or semantic resonance. Even if, as in
Dada/Surrealism it's an incongruous juxtaposition. Something needs to
link or amplify. Otherwise you've got a collage or mish-mash of
"found" stuff that doesn't hang together, and that is considered
immature.<p>A clever steal makes the thing you take feel like it always belonged
more in your piece than the original context. That's hard, but it
happens and its wonderful. Maybe you take a grab that forms the
perfect cadence to an entire song you wrote, or just a sound whose
harmonics make the perfect missing parts to another chord.<p>A completely leftfield steal borrows from a genre that is totally
unexpected. There's a balance to be struck with obscurity here.<p>Finally, all of these combine such that an appropriation has a
<i>point</i>. It communicates an idea, through juxtaposition, association
or whatever. It references. It's a homage.<p>I know that the hidden question behind this post is "Does AI
appropriate?"<p>I don't think it does, because it lacks the intentionality of the
above points. But humans are great pattern matchers, including seeing
patterns that are accidental, so we mat read into AI and see
"appropriation" - but only in its most mechanical sense.