If you had a chance to buy a Warhol, would you? Would you pay $531,200 USD for the piece? Warhol originally created Marilyn Diptych in 1962. However, what you are seeing is not actually the Marilyn Diptych I'm talking about. It was made eleven years after, in 1973, by Elaine Sturtevant, and it's current selling price is the one above. If it looks the same, feels the same, is made with the original silkscreens that Warhol used, then is it just as valuable as the original, despite its difference in time and artist?
They say ignorance is bliss -- would your pleasure be diminished if you knew that your once authentic print (a Warhol original!) was just a fake done by another artist? (Evidently the art world thought that Sturtevant was making significant commentary on authenticity because her efforts are now rewarded with half a million dollar market prices.) We often see fake Luis Vuitton purses; in fact people seem to revel in the fact that they're showing off "Luis Vuitton" to the untrained eye, even though all LV fakes bear the same pattern to each other and are remarkably dissimilar to authentic Luis Vuitton purses. But if a person honestly believes in the object's authenticity, is that acceptable? Is objective truth more important than subjective truth? (I realize this should be discussed at the end of the course when postmodernism is introduced.)
Which is more acceptable or are the two examples of equal value? Sturtevant's forethought and earnestness in replicating artworks has become her style. She's replicated Duchamp, Warhol, Lichenstein, and countless others by reproducing the works the same way the original artists did. Is it acceptable to copy artwork under that philosophy? Conversely, Luis Vuitton knock-offs are made solely for profit and to allow citizens experience the delight of buying haute couture. If you cannot verify the copier's intentions, if we had no record or knowledge of Sturtevant's artist statements, would we condemn her artwork?
(Note to self: More thinking required on this one.)
Great question, Khuyen! Is Sturtevant's work devalued if it is a copy of other artists such as Warhol, Lichenstien, Duchamp and others who in turn copied or created reproductions of other artists works. It's a very tricky thing to answer considering the artists involved. The gut reaction seems to be to cry 'plagiarism' at the thought of someone simply copying/"stealing" someone else's idea. On the other hand, these aren't entirely knock-offs. While copies of the originals, there still is the notion that Sturtevant, not Warhol, created these new prints. It could possibly explain the high price tag that is attached to these.
ReplyDeleteAs you said with the selling of knock-offs of, say a Rolex (which probably reads "Bolex" or something ;) ), from some shady guy off the street, we might consider this an "excusable" amount of plagiarism. The knock off is going to going to cost less and is meant to make the buyer look rich to people who aren't going to look too closely. It's sort of conflicting to try and judge her work as simply an Andy Warhol Knock off or as an original piece.
Cheers,
Matt
Just a note: Sturtevant's artwork is actually being exhibited alongside Warhol's at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa called Pop Life: Art in a Material World, which is where I discovered the artist.
ReplyDeleteI actually own a knock off Gucci wallet. It was a gift, bought in Istanbul (of all places!) I knew it for a knock off immediately, though the purchaser did not recognize it as such. I never told them. The fact is, despite it's status as a knock off, it is still a beautifully tooled leather wallet that is perfectly functional. It came with a little card, which I keep inside which says "Gucci is the best choice of the successful person" complete with a Dolce Gabbana logo. To me, this wallet is of equal value to the "real deal." I suppose I am one of those people who gets a little kick out of passing off something fake as a real designer item... though the gifter honestly believed it to be the real thing. I think in a case like this it is completely acceptable... Maybe not if the item is not of comparable quality (ie. shabby stitching, fake vs real leather, etc.)
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Warhol/Sturtevant prints, if she is indeed using the original screens made by Warhol, I think the question should not be "is it just as valuable?" but instead should be "is it truely a Sturtevant or is it actually a Warhol?" So many artists in the past have used others to execute their work - the Lithography Workshop of the 70's at NSCAD is a great example. The "I will not make any more boring art" print with which we are all so familiar was physically made by NSCAD students using the instructions and "original" penmanship from John Baldessari. It is still identified as a Baldessari print. Maybe we should consider these "knock offs" of Warhol's work to be "authentically" his...
?
I think the issue of authenticity also needs to encompass the context of the artist and the artist's own concepts/ideas. These, for me are as much about the work of art as the actual work of art. For me it is what infuses meaning and therefore enriches my experience of it. I think there are many ways to read Sturtevant but I am currently thinking about the dynamic at play which both honours their work and distances us from it. On the one hand, Sturtevant has to master their disciplines in order to produce the "copy" and so the invest of her time and effort is an "honour"; on the other hand, she creates a distance and allows us to gain a different perspective. In a sense, she addresses the "superstar" qualities we have bestowed on them and douses them with some humility.
ReplyDeleteRe: Caitlin
ReplyDeleteActually, there's a famous quote of Warhol's in the case where many people in the 70s were asking him about his methods and processes of Sturtevant's work, with which he replied, "I don't know. Ask Elaine." He was an endorser of her copying not as a way to produce under his name, but as her right as an artist.
Was browsing in a bookstore on the weekend and came across this book which might interest you Khuyen! The Authenticity Hoax, How we get lost finding ourselves, by Andrew Potter.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline