Alright children, gather round. Let's look at what appropriation art is and why it's important, with a concrete example. Buckle up.
The picture below is derived from Millie's profile picture. "Stealing" the picture was easy. All I had to do was right click with my mouse, download it, and drop it into clip studio paint. Sadly, no GPU's or AI's were harmed in the making of this educational image.
In strict technical terms, what I've done, without consulting Millie, because I have no obligation moral or legal to do so, is take haar likeness and image, and layer it with the lowest possible effort for line work.
Then, I layered other photography on top of it, like that image I "stole" from Facebook of a turkey sandwich that happens to look like a naked woman, a couple of camera lenses, drew a nice long shimmering mustache, because this is a post about appropriation art, and I am a Dadaist, so whatever.
A tiny touch of color correction, some difference and pin lighting layers, and the resulting piece is a work of appropriation art. Even though, I personally, don't own any of the pieces.
Changing the context
Firstly, it's transformative. I took the original photograph from Millie's profile picture, and changed the meaning. I did it in an effort to provide criticism on haar dogshit opinions. It's not a market replacement for Millie's profile picture, and wouldn't be, even if I made another twitter profile, and used it in that way.
And what's interesting is that unlike an AI, I actually did replicate all of the original images that I borrowed from other places.
Appropriation, especially now that the entire professional art world has been reduced to tracing, is important because all artists depend on it.
Even if you're not making mean spirited collages of people who disagree with you on twitter, you're going to use references. References are appropriation, and do not require licenses. You can use them unconditionally. And nobody can stop you from doing it.
Copyright does not cover all copying, or all distribution. And even in cases where a work is copied, sold, and redistributed without modification, it's still not theft. Theft is criminal, and requires something to be lost. Copyright infringement is a policy violation with mostly civil penalties.
But, by Millie's reasoning, I have stolen both haar likeness and creative capital. And more than that, I have used this opportunity to call haar out and insult haar, which is true. I've done all of that. Appropriation art is meant to be provocative. Deal.
Tools, speech and scale
However, there is no law anywhere that stops me from making one piece of appropriation art or say, five billion or five trillion pieces of appropriation art. And the tools I use to make appropriation art, regardless of the reasons I choose to speak, or what I use to do it all fall into a legal category, at least in America, that we call "protected speech."
You see, not only can I legally create art like this with legal impunity, but I could sell it too, in any medium I want. And if anyone wants to buy a token of this low resolution piece of trash, I would be happy to mint them one.
There isn't a damned thing Millie and haar high minded values could do about it, except call me names. Even in the wake of the Warhol case last year, I would still be protected if it ever got to court.
The problem with this particular argument, but also every argument like it is that it throws my rights to appropriate, use references, and speak under the bus, for the sole reason of excluding lesser art that this fascist doesn't deem worthy.
When you see people aligning themselves with the forces of hate, oppression, repression, and censorship, you as an artist have a moral obligation to speak up.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with making art with AI, or any other tool. The way you make your art doesn't matter. What matters is first that you create, second what you say, and a distant third that you make it brazen, and willfully, and dangerous.
Don't allow assholes like this to push you around, or dictate what is and isn't valid for YOU to do. THEY are the ones with invalid opinions, and even more invalid self defeating rules.
Moral arguments are by nature self serving, othering, and evil. it is okay to dismiss all moral arguments on the grounds of fraud, because that's all it is.
Don't be misled by grifters with anti-human art hating agendas.
I love you all.
