Soulmaking: Making and Deriving Meaning from Art

In order for humans to make sense of language and derive meanings from words, semantics and
grammatical rules are important elements to be considered. Aside from this, context and symbolisms
are also considered to interpret and analyze either verbal or written works: When it comes to art, in
order for people to make sense of the work, it would require understanding the visual elements where
art was grounded on, especially the principles of design. It is important to note that the audience of the
artwork must have a certain level of awareness to the style, form, and content of the said work. Without
such understanding, it would be difficult to appreciate the visual arts in its fullness and entirety.

Style refers to the distinctive handling of elements and media associated with the work of an
individual artist, a school, a movement, or a specific cuture or time period Throughout history, there
have been developments in art styles that depict different and varied methods of expression. Artworks
also have a certain form. This form is what the audience sees-a finished product put harmoniously (or
not) according to the different principles of design. In essense, form is the totality of the artwork, which
includes the textures, colors, and shapes utilized by the artist. The content of an artwork includes the
not only its form but also its subject matter and underlying meanings or themes. The perceiver of the
artwork must take into consideration the totality of elements, underlying themes and motifs, and
composition.

Improvisation

Improvisation can be defined as doing something without prior preparation. There is a decision to
act upon something that may not necessarily be planned. Within the present context, improvation has
become an integral part of the arts. Some would say that it is a reaction agains the stiffness in the arts
during the twentieth century. There is a call for liberation from monotory that aims to rekindle the
creative spirits of people in the arts.

For some artists, infusing spontaneity and improvation adds up to the totality of the work of art.
The unexpectedness of the changes brought about by improvasation makes the artwork to have a
distinctive quality that creates its individuality and identity. Some artists subscribe to the idea of
allowing chances in the process of producing the work. For example, artists would want to capture the
gloom brought about by an approaching storm or the beauty of a meteor shower at night. Since they do
not necessarily have absolute control over natural phenomena, their reliance on chances may not
necessarily produce their expected outcome. Artists allowing their subjects do improvise may have
totally different result as well.

When an artists makes his work, he has already an idea of the elements that will be included in his
work. As begins to craft his work, he may have deviated from his original plan. So in essence,
improvisation is evident in the process of making the painting. During the 1960s, art improvisation has
taken from in the galleries around New York City. Performance art, dance, and visual arts were
combined to create new forms of artworks usuing a new medium. These performances were known as
the “happenings” which later on paved the way for meodern body art and performance art. One of
central figures in the improvisation movement was Geaorge Mathieu. He started the “action painting”
wherein the process is seen real-time. In scenario, the process is more important than the finished
product.
Appropriation

If, for example, an artist created a painting and displayed it in a museum, who do you think owns
the artwork: the artist or his intended audience? During the twentieth century, people started raising
the question whether or not the act of deriving meaning gives the ownership of the viewer rather than
the artist himself. This notion paved the way for the emergence of appropriation artists who seem to
promote the idea that the authorship relies on the viewer. If this is the case, then appropriation artists
can take as mush as he wants from an existing artwork.

Appropriation of arthas been a common practice throughout history. In the past, if an apprentice
painter needs to hone his skills in his craft, he would be allowed to use his master’s work to copy. It is as
if the apprentice is trying to explore his personal application of techniques to something he is more
familiar with. However, there are some people who go to the extreme by believing that copying the
exact artwork of an artist and attributing it to his own. This could pose a problem especially with
authorship. The problem arises when the appropriation artist would get bits and pieces from other
works and incorporate these elements into their own, their voices and perspectives of the other artists
get lost with that of the appropriation artist. There seems to be a very thin demarcation line between
appropriation art and forgery. Traditionally, forgery can be classified into two forms: outright copies of
existing works and pastiches, which are works that bring together elements from a work and infusing
them to a new work. But in contemporary times, forgery can be in the form of creating an approximate
of what an artist would do by prediction. This can be done by observing the techniques and style the
artist employed and even the focal points highlighted in his previous and existing works.

The intensions of appropriation artist are often questioned since issues of plagiarism or forgery
sometimes arise. Some would argue that the reason behind the appropriation is that they want the
audience to recognize the images they copied. There is a hope on the part of the artist for the viewers to
see the original work in a new perspective. That appropraition would bring about a new context to the
original work. One of the most famous works of appropriation would have to be Andy Warhol’s
Campbell’s Soup Cans”(1962). Warhol copied the original labels of the soup can but cans is something
new for the audience. Just like any product, the brand is integral to Campbell’s identity. As an artist,
Warhol decided to isolate the image of the product. This attempt could in turn stimulate product
recognition. A common viewer would associate the Campbell soup with the portraits of the soup cans.
This association would bring about a certain kind of craving for the said product. In a way, it is a subtle
form of advertising that would entice the consumer to buy and patronize the product.

Appropriation refers to the act of borrowing or reusing existing elements within a new work. Post-
modern appropriation artists, including Barbara Kruger, are keen to deny the notion of ‘originality’. They
believe that in borrowing existing imagery or elements of imagery, they are re-contextualising or
appropriating the original imagery, allowing the viewer to renegotiate the meaning of the original in a
different, more relevant, or more current context.

In separating images from the original context of their own media, we allow them to take on new and
varied meanings. The process and nature of appropriation has considered by anthropologists as part of
the study of cultural change and cross-cultural contact.

Images and elements of culture that have been appropriated commonly involve famous and
recognisable works of art, well known literature, and easily accessible images from the media.
The first artist to successfully demonstrate forms of appropriation within his or her work is widely
considered to be Marcel Duchamp. He devised the concept of the ‘readymade’, which essentially
involved an item being chosen by the artist, signed by the artist and repositioned into a gallery context.

The concepts of originality and of authorship are central to the debate of appropriation in contemporary
art. We shall discuss these in depth in order to contextualise the works we will investigate later in this
essay. To properly examine the concept it is also necessary to consider the work of the artists associated
with appropriation with regards to their motivations, reasoning, and the effect of their work.

The term ‘author’ refers to one who originates or gives existence to a piece of work. Authorship then,
determines a responsibility for what is created by that author. The practice of appropriation is often
thought to support the point of view that authorship in art is an outmoded or misguided concept.
Perhaps the most famous supporter of this notion was Roland Barthes. His 1966 work ‘The Death of the
Author’ argued that we should not look to the creator of a literary or artistic work when attempting to
interpret the meaning inherent within. “The explanation of a work is always sought in the man or
woman who created it… (but) it is language which speaks; not the author.” With appropriated works,
the viewer is less likely to consider the role of the author or artist in constructing interpretations and
opinions of the work if they are aware of the work from which it was appropriated.