Appropriation...Appropriate or not?
When I look around my studio there are a few iconic characters that majorly jump out to me. From Mickey Mouse to SpongeBob Square Pants it’s clear that I choose to surround myself with modernized and, at times, macabre versions of beloved childhood cartoons. Personally it brings about not only a sense of nostalgic comfort but also reaffirms my understanding of what a “good” and timeless character design looks like! These are the classics, I’m talkin’ Pink Panther, Hello Kitty, the Simpsons, literally anything Disney (Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, a handful of Princess') but tried and true it seems most art toys that dabble with an established and beloved IP do mostly well in an otherwise risky market. Of course there are always exceptions to this and there are plenty of art flops that borrow from the safety net that is a pre established character but I won’t go into that. No, this conversation will focus more on questions like “Is the appropriation of pre existing IP ethical?” Or perhaps “Is borrowing a character lazy or reinventive and classic?” For the purposes of this article I'd argue that Appropriation refers to the practice of borrowing or imitating elements from other cultures, artworks, or media. Some see it as a creative technique that enriches and expands artistic expression, while others view it as problematic or even exploitative.
When you break it all down there are plenty of artists who borrow in thoughtful creative ways. I’ve always admired Grafflex’s “Bold the Jump” character which depicts a deconstructed Mickey Mouse in the jumping position, seen below. The artist uses his playful talent to confidently manipulate the silhouette of Mickey while keeping the essential characteristics to communicate who and what it is. Not to mention how dynamic his figures typically are - they so often have a ton of energy. And though they may look weightless they’re actually made from an incredibly sturdy and solid resin!! I think in Grafflex’s case his ability to choose what he uses vs what he doesn’t is essential. Too many artists latch onto the most basic qualities of a character and the charm of their work falls flat or feels gimmicky. I believe it takes extensive work to establish what works compared to what doesn't.
Unusual crossovers also serve to excite the average collector! In Abaobao’s case she applies her go to artistic style = add or subtract an eye or three to accentuate the oddity aspect while keeping the tone innocent and cute. That effortless contrast between weird and adorable makes her use of Sanrio’s “Hello Kitty” an absolute hit for me. (Seen above). She doesn't try to hard but rather adapts the more distinguishable components of Kitty without forcing too much of her hand into the figure - meaning, she perpetuates the essentials of HK; the girly dress, the quintessential ears, and of course, her big red bow without trying to change the aura of Hello Kitty too heavily. Using the familiar and key aspects of the character then leaves room to change other things, for instance, she eliminated her identifiable blue denim jumpers as well as the sheer fact that Abaobao was able to personify Kitty as an actual one eyed human so successfully lol.
From food appropriations like artist Sket One, Zard Apuya, or my very own Thom Pops, to borrowing popular shoe themes like the infamous artist Shoeuzi, derivative artwork can range from characters to objects and everything in between. Iconography even goes as far as demonstrating the ability to use distinct color palettes to communicate a specific character or brand. Think yellow, black, and red for Mickey Mouse. Or red, yellow, and white for Mcdonalds - take note of series like Vandul’s "Walk" figures where he channels themes such as the popular American convenience store 7-Eleven, McDonald's, or even Menthol cigarettes lmfao. Using strong color association of widely recognizable brands he’s able to cleverly style his characters without them feeling overdone or tired. This seems easy but I assure you it’s a genuine skill. I'll call it the balance of borrowing - knowing what to use and what to lose.
All in all I am no hypocrite! I have a TON of pieces that have borrowed IP and I mean like majority of my collection…so whether I think it’s lazy or not doesn’t really matter as I clearly support the use of it. But at the end of the day I personally rely more heavily on original ideas for my body of work though even I’ve dipped into the well of characters we all know and love. Plus I think there’s little to no harm in doing it but I DO respect and cherish original character ideas more and always will. But I don’t think I’m saying anything revolutionary. Enjoy IP ethically but don’t make it a staple in your portfolio!
Across Lego and Disney to Nickelodeon and much more, beloved characters from far and wide have been borrowed, mutated, manipulated, and regurgitated into the art we hoard and resell today. Whether we approve or not I highly suspect that this not so little niche of the market is beyond thriving and will continue to. I think it can be super fascinating but it really depends on how it’s done. There’s a lot of potential for creativity but also a lot of room for problematic uses. An ethical conversation of right and wrong is always the way to pioneer a conversation like this but one has to beg the question, "Is this technically legal?" and we could mostly say.....no. To be frank, artists like you and I operate under a shady fuzzy area known as "gray area" or "grey area" if you're a Brit. There are a multitude of caveats and rules to this one so I won't even begin to be able to answer all of your questions here in regards to borrowing intellectual property but my general rule and question to myself before producing a figure is:
- Q: Is the artist I'm borrowing from already producing vinyl toys (alternatively, is the artist producing a similar item that I'd like to make? And if so, do they look like what I'd like to create or vastly different and why? I'd suggest designing your appropriation very differently from the original artist. Give it your own spin with your own visual language. The more you change the character the less likely you are to be accused of theft.
A: IF the artist you're borrowing from IS creating work similar to your own, walk away. It's not yours to overshadow. It's ultimately their character to explore with so allow them to. But if your artist isn't creating similar work to what you'd like to bring to life I'd sooner argue to approach the artist FIRST and foremost with an official collaboration concept. If all else fails, try again. Keep approaching the artist to not only show genuine respect but to establish a paper train of intent. Follow up. Keep following up. I know this sounds annoying but its more annoying to get your art stolen lol. Give the artist the benefit of the doubt, they're busy making a living. Comment on their work, send them DM's, reach out via email, the whole shebang. If and only if after every possible method was attempted then can you move forward with an appropriate appropriation. *I should add a nuanced but wildly essential caveat to all of this, but I believe these rules of engagement only really apply to big players. A "big player" typically entails a larger artist or entity that doesn't classify themselves as a small time artist. In short, don't borrow from smaller-medium sized artists without their explicit consent. If its generally accepted as pop culture or widely known; think about popularly known cartoons or book characters, mascots, food icons, etc.* - Q: Am I adding something new to the visual narrative of the character? Am I pushing the boundaries of what's already been said? Am I using someone else's work to prop up my own or am I adding elements that weren't already there.
A: It's a simple gesture - ensure that your appropriation actually DOES something. We get it, you can throw a skull on Mickey Mouse and ooooo now he's super spooky...But what else can you do? A good example is my friend Abell Octovan's "I Donut Care" (seen below). It's obviously a Simpsons homage but what he does is isolate homers hand, pair it with his iconic donut, and slapped a comical adult twist onto it. This figure is so successful to me because of the simple fact that he goes for the unexpected - a dissected bust style hand! He uses a minimal amount of detail to dictate a very complex figure.
The legality of it all!? Let me start by saying and I'll reiterate this like a billion trillion times through out this whole thing... I am a professional dumbass and NOT a lawyer. Nothing I say has any legal standing. Ever. Rather, I speak on behalf of a handful of "extensive" google searches and bare experience - so my knowledge is laughable and negligent at best BUT for the express purposes of this blog I'll pretend that I know what I'm on about.
With that, nah and no, I don't believe we as artists have any real "right" or say so on another artists characters. Which, when I say it out loud, of course we don't! And why would we? But there are many ways to appropriate a character with no legal ramifications because, after all, it's what our entire toy economy is based on. I'd argue the biggest and best way to avoid legal backlash is to appropriate consciously and kindly. I could imagine that someone like Ron English could have run into his fair share of seize and desists in his lifetime because his body of work typically includes admired cereal characters being portrayed as fat gluttons eager to destroy children's health (but tbh that's not far off from what they actually are). This sort of negative attention toward a company or character could spark some quick legal trouble. Inversely, someone like artist Vexx who respectfully appropriates usually finds himself with brand deals! It makes sense when you think about it - dog the company negatively and they don't like that. If you give them a considerate shout out they're much more likely to reward you or at the very least, allow the behavior.
So to play it safe - if you'll be appropriating just do so safely and respectfully. Always ask first unless its unrealistic to do so and take no for an answer when given!! I love you all, thanks for reading, and borrow mindfully.
