Art plagiarism creates unintended associates for artists

The other day I was brought into a discussion regarding a band's use of an artist's image for the purpose of its music. I'm not going to get into details, but basically, a band used an image I recognized as a certain artist's painting, I called it out as theft and a discussion regarding the differences between appropriation, plagiarism and parody began.

Effectively, there's a lot of misconception out there regarding what is and is not OK to do regarding art and music. The punk community is especially known for not caring about anything, because of anarchy and all that jazz. Legendary hardcore band Black Flag has had their iconic logo parodied so many times it's hard to remember the source. Hell, I had a friend in high school who owned a Black Flag shirt because he thought it was a cool logo. Honestly, I couldn't blame him.

That is a prime example of parody. It's meant to bring the viewer into the light that is Black Flag. Their logo is so iconic, it's practically public domain. When bands work off that logo form it is not an attempt to redefine the meaning of those four black boxes. It's a means of homage. If anything, parodying the Black Flag logo is an attempt to sling shot your band into more notoriety by aligning yourself with the Black Flag identity.

Appropriation is a wonderful word for "creative gray area." Basically, appropriation is using something to create something new. Andy Warhol is best known for his appropriated works, in that he used the images of celebrities to create new works of art. Most sampling in the hip hop industry comes under this label of appropriation, because they take an existing creative work and make something out of it.

I'm sure I could come up with a sample of Adele so hot I'd get hood producers blowing up my cell. Take something popular completely out of context and make something new. Effectively, appropriation is a really fancy word for collage. It contains elements of the original property while remaining a brand new product. Like a parody, it is recognizable but different.

Then there is plagiarism. Sometimes, it's hard to define. Other times, it's extremely obvious. Plagiarism is stealing, and there are no exceptions to that. It is defining and identifying someone else's work as your own. And when I use the term "identity," I don't mean logo. While logos are part of identities, artwork and visual imagery lend themselves just as much to the identity of a band.

Musical artists are more than just bands. They are, in fact, brands. If a musician makes a decent amount of money, they are required to register as an LLC. For a band to be able to make purchases they need a bank account and a recognized, legal standing as a corporation. It sounds dehumanized, but it's how things are. As a result, a band cannot just use something.

It doesn't matter if the band does not claim the work as their own: The act of using imagery, music or other creative material within their identity is an inherent claim of identity in and of itself. And to the attempts of justifying that action by claiming you're not selling it or using it to gain money, I call bullshit.

There is no such thing as a purist artist. Everything in the industry is done to gain capital. Argue all you want that it's about the music, but a musician needs to make money to continue to make music. Can a musician tour on pure art alone? Hell no. Can an artist paint without funding for canvas and paints? Hell no, that's expensive.  

In the discussion I mentioned earlier, a point to the effect of, "if I were an artist, I would be flattered that my work was used by a band" was brought up. That's fine, but what if a white power punk band uses your painting as their album art work and suddenly your style and subject matter is forever associated with the neo-Nazi movement? What if, as a direct result of this plagiarism, you are associated with those ideals? Georgia O'Keefe's work was read as nothing but a bunch of flowery-looking vaginas, an idea she fought until her death. As a result, art history will forever see a vaginal, feminine message in her paintings. She was unable to escape that reading in the same way you would be unable to escape an association with bigotry.

At the end of the day, stealing is stealing. Attempts to justify these actions by saying you aren't making money or aren't artistic enough to make your own artwork are just insults to artists everywhere, especially those whose work is stolen. Create something new. It's not that hard, but I understand that not everyone can major in art.

If there's one thing I've learned about the indie music scene, it's that anyone can be a musician. Along the same lines, if I've learned one thing in four years of fine arts education, it's that anyone can be an artist.

Neil Orians is a senior fine arts major and is known as the only white rapper allowed to use the N-word. Or maybe that was Donald Glover. Reach him at neilorians@dailynebraskan.com