Instances of Appropriation in Late Roman and Early Christian Art

Abstract

York in 2008.16 In both cases the original photographers claimed authorship and its attendant rights of compensation; in effect, the taking of their images without compensation was deemed to be a form of spoliation.17 In both cases, the appropriators maintained that rights of authorship did not pertain because their source material was not original or creative; it was part of a shared mass cultural environment, and as such collective property.Koons called Rogers' photograph "a cupcake," i.e., an object indistinguishable from other mass-produced objects of its category, a piece of cultural "junk" that became art only when transformed by the artist's (Koons') idea.18 Richard Prince claimed that the photographs by Patrick Cariou were "raw material," "mere compilations of facts ... arranged with minimum creativity."19 Sherrie Levine -who also faced legal challenges and no longer exhibits the Evans and Weston rephotographs as her own -appropriated the work of Roland Barthes to assert 16 Randy Kennedy, "Apropos Appropriation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.