In “Original Copies” of “The contingent object of contemporary art”, Martha Buskirk discussed what it means to “copy“ the material or content of an original work. The definition of “copy” as I interpret it from Buskirk’s words, should be distinguished from that of duplication, the works that “copy” pre-existing materials cited by Buskirk, are in certain ways original, in that the act of remaking gives significance to both the copying and the copied version of the work.
I am very interested in the idea of recontextualization of the same subject. In spite of Marcel Duchamp’s authorship over the readymade urinal in his work “Fountain“, Sherrie Levine, David Hammons, and Robert Gober placed their urinals in very different contexts. Instead of the subject matter, each artist is focused on a particular material or technique. By copying the famous work “Fountain” and cast it in shiny bronze, appropriation artist Levine undermined the preconception of originality in art and brought to light gender misrepresentation in the art history. David Hammons, by placing urinals on trees, is interested in arranging the found objects in public space. Robert Gober, on the other hand, was investigating the subject of gay identity and AIDS through hand-making sinks and urinals. These works were at some point controversial as certain people questioned their originality, but by changing the context of the work and adding their own twist, they gave further meanings to the urinal.
Another underlying but radical aspect of copying in Levine’s version of “Fountain”, which resonates with Jasper Johns’s “Painted Bronze” and Andy Warhol’s “Brillo Boxes”, is the use of traditional fine art methods to recreate everyday objects. This approach subverts Duchamp’s concept of the readymade, the act of taking a mass-produced, already-manufactured object and assign authorship to call it art. These artists are recreating their own versions of the readymade. It is this exact process that deepens the understanding of the original objects.
There is also the mechanical reproduction. Marcel Duchamp preserved the photo documentation of his lost objects in “Box in a Valise”. Andre Malraux used photos to represent works of art in “Museum Without Walls”. The mechanical reproductions will never be as complete as the original work, but depending on the author’s careful selection and organization, their ability to juxtapose artworks without the limitations of space and time and bridge unexpected connections is remarkable.
There has been a trend in various type of copying since the early 20th century. What’s being copied, in my opinion, might be found objects, brand logos, images, but never the concepts. What makes the work different from the original is the artists’ intention and personal touch through shifting the material, technique, medium, or context, therefore bringing new perspective to the same subject matter and at the meantime shining light and adding values to the original work.