'Appropriation' isn't theft, Mr Hirst
By Victoria Holman
Cartrain, "born c. 1991", has tested the sense of humour of Brit Art's biggest joker. And it has been found to be lacking.
Schoolboy artist Cartrain, who has made various art critics want to cheer by wryly placing his objects in stuffy arts institutions, has recently been on the receiving end of a legal wrangle with none other than Britain's richest artist.
Damien Hirst contacted the Design and Artists Copyright Society (Dacs) after seeing some of Cartrain's collages, which contain photographs of Hirst's infamous diamond encrusted skull (aptly titled For The Love of God), on an online gallery site 100artworks.com… selling for an average of £65.
The situation couldn't be more ironic.
Britain's biggest artist in legal wrangle with schoolboy. You couldn't make it up.
Hirst is one of the art world's biggest jokers and appropriators. But a sense of humour is really tested when on the receiving end of a joke, rather than when extracting the proverbial urine.
His spin paintings were inspired by Blue Peter, while the Hirst artwork being 'appropriated' was influenced by another artist, John LeKay!
But personally, I think this comes down to a more fundamental issue of whether it is okay to reference and use elements of other artists' work in your own.
Back in the days when I was an art student two important lessons stuck with me.
1, Break all the rules
2, 'Appropriation' is not theft.
Borrowing and altering images within the context of another artwork is seen as 'cultural referencing' by art schools and emerging artists… something generally encouraged not lambasted.
So, is Hirst really angry about the 'theft' of his image… or is it sour grapes because this 16-year-old chancer is making an impact?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/victoriaholman/5926818/Appropriation_isnt_theft_Mr_Hirst_/
