This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 14 November 2014, At: 17:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual Resources: An InternationalJournal of DocumentationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gvir20

Introduction: Plagiarism in Art (and ArtHistory)Mary VaccaroPublished online: 04 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Mary Vaccaro (2000) Introduction: Plagiarism in Art (and Art History),Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation, 16:2, 127-130, DOI:10.1080/01973762.2000.9658543

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2000.9658543

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Visual Resources, Vol. XVI, pp. 127-130 O 2000 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V. Reprints available directly from the publisher Published by license under Photocopying permitted by license only the Harwood Academic Publishers imprint,

part of The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group. Printed in Malaysia.

Introduction: Plagiarism in Art (and Art History)

Mary Vaccaro

The term plagiarism-from the Latin plagiarius, originally in reference to a kidnapper of children or slaves--denotes an act of wrongful appropri- ation, whereby an individual purloins and claims publicly the ideas, or the creative expression of ideas, of another. Such a definition, by no means exhaustive, raises many provocative and difficult questions with regard to the making and study of art. For instance, when is appropriation, a prac- tice central to artistic creation, wrong? Are the operations of plagiarism different in the discipline of art versus that of art hstory, and, if so, how and why? How is plagiarism socially and hstorically specific? What is the history of plagiarism? In particular, how does the discourse about plagiar- ism, a discourse often silenced, relate to systems of power? What are the ethical and legal implications of plagiarism, and what strategies prove most effective in dealing with the problem?

This special issue of Visual Resources publishes the proceedings of a joint art history/ studio art session on plagiarism for which I served as chair at the 1999 annual meeting of the College Art Association in Los Angeles. Personal experience informs my interest in the topic. Several years ago, faced with a situation involving the plagiarism of my work, I sought advice on how I might best handle the matter. I consulted with dozens of colleagues, many of them eminent senior scholars in my field, as well as with a representative of the College Art Association Professional Practices Committee. What I found most striking about my survey was the wide range of attitudes about plagiarism and about the strategies with which to combat plagiarism. The responses I received were so diverse that, once I eventually resolved my particular dilemma, I was left with a desire to explore further the issue of plagiarism on a far less personal level, and therefore proposed a CAA session to initiate a positive dialogue on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

1281 VZSUAL RESOURCES

theme. The five papers presented at the session are published here at the kind invitation of editors Helene Roberts and Christine Sundt, both of whom were part of the audience in Los Angeles.

As the title of the first essay indicates, Gunnar Swanson investigates the question of what is wrong with plagiarism. A graphic designer, he has previously addressed this topic and its implications for art and art-making. In 1990 he mailed a related questionnaire primarily to designers and design educators and then reported his findings in an article in Zed, a graphic design journal published by Virginia Commonwealth Unversity. In the present essay, Swanson further elaborates on the definitional and ethical problems of plagiarism or "plagiarisms." His argument, albeit based in the field of graphc design, raises broader points that are relevant to art and academia in general.

The four other essays deal with more specific case studies. In "Rever- sals of Power: Artistic Property, Counterfeiture, and the 1793 French Copyright Act," Anne Schroeder focuses on copyright legislation in Paris at the turn of the nineteenth century. A court case in 1801 involving the production and sale of engravings underscores the limits of the Copy- right Act of 1793: the Revolutionary law, which intended to diminish govenunental influence and censorship, had left much unspecified regarding the personal rights of creative individuals. Schroeder analyzes the 1801 trial testimony and subsequent treatises in order to establish contemporary distinctions between legitimate and fradulent copying and the definition of artistic property.

The third essay deals not with acts of plagiarism but with rhetorical claims of plagiarism. In "Innovation and the Rhetoric of Plagiarism: The Klein/ Takis Rivalry," Stephen Petersen examines the claims and counter- claims of artistic theft exchanged between Yves Klein and Vassilakis Takis. According to Petersen, the accusations are best understood in the context of the competitive art world of 1950s Paris with its increasing emphasis on innovation and conceptual priority. The hyperbolic contestation of the Klein-Takis rivalry exposes the complexities and even absurdities in tradi- tional distinctions between originality and plagiarism.

The fourth essay, "The Preke Speaks: Kahlua's Co-option of West Mex- ican Burial Effigies," deals with the use of Pre-Columbian burial effigies to advertise a popular liqueur. By tracing a series of Kahlua ad campaigns, Judy Sund demonstrates the progressive appropriation, cultural efface- ment, and creative misinterpretation of West Mexican ritual ceramics. The situation offers a telling case of cultural plagiarism, a co-option that is imperialist, exploitative, and intensely commercial.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Finally, the fifth essay addresses the problem of plagiarism or copyright infringement in contemporary art and emerging digital media. In "The Key to the (Digital) Salon: Copyright Infringement and the Control of Expression," Richard Pfohl reviews the case of Rogers v. Koons, wherein artist Jeff Koons was found liable for copyright infringement. Pfohl argues for the subjectivity of purportedly neutral U.S. copyright law, based on a definition of art (idea-expression dichotomy) that is especially ill-equipped to handle post-modern challenges to such concepts as authorship, origin- ality, and plagiarism.

The five essays thus imaginatively explore the topic of plagiarism in a variety of contexts. Altogether missing, however, is any mention of plagi- arism in academia and academic practice. Indeed, in response to the call for papers for my session, I received no submissions that proposed to treat academic plagiarism. The silence is not insignificant. During the session in Los Angeles, one audience member noted this omission and proceeded to identify certain individuals guilty of plagiarism. Making public a list of supposed or actual offenders seems more sensationalist than productive, yet the vexing question of what should and can instead be done remains. The College Art Association has A Code of Ethics for Art Historians and Guidelines for the Professional Practice of Art History, which intends to pro- vide a framework for conduct and ethical values, but lacks provisions for the enforcement of the guidelines.' In this document, moreover, the word plagiarism appears once as part of a rather vague prescription that art his- torians "guard against misrepresenting evidence and against the offense of plagiarism." Another section of the document declares that authors should be scrupulous in crediting sources, but curiously notes only the case of published scholarly work used without credit by popularizers in magazines. Unfortunately, plagiarism does not just occur in popular maga- zines nor in the research papers of disingenuous students. Are academics ultimately to be held accountable for their professional ethics, and if so, how? If true scholarship depends on the exchange of ideas, why are so many academics afraid to share those ideas until they appear in print? The seemingly interminable delays in publication and countless pressures over tenure and job security only exacerbate the s i tuat i~n.~ I have deliber- ately relegated the term art history in the title of this introduction to parthentheses. Let it serve as a future invitation to consider and discuss the unspeakable.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

1301 VISUAL RESOURCES

NOTES

1. For the document, see <<http: / /www.collegeart .org/caa/ethics/astetcs.hl . I thank Michael Aurbach, chair of the CAA Professional Practices Committee, for discussing the matter with me.

2. On plagiarism in general, including plagiarism in academia, see Judy Anderson, Plagiarism, Copyright Violation and Other Thefs of lntellectual Properfy: An Annotated Bibliography with a Lengthy introduction (North Carolina and London, McFarland & Company Inc., Jefferson, 1998), and Perspect- ives on Plagiarism and lntellectual Property in a Postmodern World, eds. Lise Buranen and Alice M. Roy (Albany, New York, 1999, State University of New York Press). I thank Stephen Petersen for the biblio- graphic references.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 17:

06 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014