Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSymko, Rivaen
dc.date2014-12-22 14:45:31.838
dc.date2014-12-24 15:59:40.755
dc.date.accessioned2015-01-05T21:35:42Z
dc.date.issued2015-01-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1974/12676
dc.descriptionThesis (Ph.D, Art History) -- Queen's University, 2014-12-24 15:59:40.755en
dc.description.abstractThe past decade and a half of technological innovation and explosion of historical multiplicities have reignited the debates on appropriation. This dissertation contributes to the discussion for the purposes of understanding appropriation’s significance to our fluctuating conceptions of authenticity and originality, and to our long-standing cultural institutions (specifically, copyright). Critics of certain kinds of appropriation (like pastiche) have argued it is nothing more than a vague, empty form of mimicry, more closely related to theft than to creative production. On the other hand, advocates for certain kinds of appropriation (like parody, satire, or collage) have regarded it as a useful form of criticism and as a catalyst for inventing new modes of expression in a postmodern moment. Some of the most conspicuous and effecting conversations about appropriation and creative production have lately occurred in relation to intellectual property legislation. Although it is often taken for granted that copyright laws protect creative producers, this dissertation follows recent revelations in literary, and communications studies which have revealed the complex tension between these producers and the economically directed industries that are both driven by, and support those producers. This thesis updates arguments about appropriation for a contemporary context by critically examining these claims from a postcolonial, Marxist perspective considered largely through contemporary Western visual art, film, fashion, and music. This thesis argues that it cannot be predetermined as to whether acts of appropriation are wholly laudatory, or wholly critical. Instead, I argue that appropriation has always carried the ability to oscillate between both poles in an intertextual exchange that remains dependent on the variables of the viewer’s context and the artist’s production. However, this intertextuality is often impeded by our fetishization of artists and creative works, and by the institutions that benefit from those fetishes.en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCanadian thesesen
dc.rightsThis publication is made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws without written authority from the copyright owner.en
dc.subjectIntersticeen
dc.subjectAuthenticityen
dc.subjectCopyrighten
dc.subjectOriginalityen
dc.subjectPasticheen
dc.subjectVisual Arten
dc.subjectParodyen
dc.subjectTrickstersen
dc.subjectFredric Jamesonen
dc.subjectCreative Productionen
dc.subjectfair useen
dc.subjectLinda Hutcheonen
dc.subjectFair Dealingen
dc.subjectCommodity Selfen
dc.subjectAppropriationen
dc.subjectCommodity Fetishismen
dc.subjectCommodity Narcissismen
dc.subjectPostmodernismen
dc.subjectIntertextualityen
dc.subjectCultural Appropriationen
dc.titleEverything (Old was New) Already: Theories, Histories, and Politics of Appropriation, Contemporary Art, and Cultureen
dc.typethesisen
dc.description.restricted-thesisFor publication as a book.en
dc.description.degreePhDen
dc.contributor.supervisorRobertson, Cliveen
dc.contributor.departmentArt Historyen
dc.embargo.terms1825en
dc.embargo.liftdate2020-01-04
dc.degree.grantorQueen's University at Kingstonen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record