sequences

On copy and appropriation

For me, and more so for my practice, copy doesn’t necessarily come with a negative connotation.I deal with this particular problematic as a necessary tool (for lack of a better word). 

In terms of my practice, I work a lot with re-creation and re-adaptation of forms, sometimes from found images or objects, but mostly within my own work. In that sense, I work with altering a preexisting image, sometimes numerous times, and then altering what comes out of it, and so on and so on. 

with dealing with the issue of copy, i see it as a range rather than separate points, from copy to not copy. In that sense, the actor editing an image leaves it within that range, closer to one side or the other, depending on recognition. 

the term appropriation, in a day to day sense, rather than in a abstract, is more applicable to certain given objects (for example, a sketch book) that get intervened on during the course of my artistic process.

the question that I raise here is what happens when the appropriated objet becomes irrecognisable? Is it still appropriation? At what point does object X stops being so? 

In that sense, I must take Heidegger’s view on essence, in the sense, in simplified lines, that it is not in the object, but in the link between it and the concept in it imprinted, being therefore of a transitory nature.

In my work, I can see in what point of production a certain “namable” object stops being so, but in the finished piece, I’m still trying to figure out how to deal with that particular aspect. And whether that is actually important for me to show.

On an end not, I must say that to look briefly at this particular issue, I had to temporarily set aside the problematic of the author, connected with the issue of copy and appropriation. I felt that I could do so because most of the appropriation or copy in my work comes from and is based on