Talk:Appropriation (art)

To begin a discussion of "Appropriation (art)," let me first suggest that we remove speculative information regarding Marcel Duchamp's appropriated urinal. Someone has written that "recent research has revealed the apparent urinal as non-standard, and even as non-functional: Duchamp allegedly custom-designed it along with his other supposed readymades." This is pure conjecture without a citation or source and should be removed from the article.

Mcameronboyd 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some problems with this article stretching the use of this word "appropriation" a bit. i am not an expert or scholar, (which is why i came to the talk page rather than editing the article), but i can see myself that there are almost no citations in the History section. Frankly i do not believe the author(s) represent authorities when they say that 'some would say leonardo da vinci appropriated biology or trees etc.'. i do not believe that anyone with authority would refer to observational or representational drawing (such as leonardo's) in general as "appropriation". it is my understanding that appropriation in art specifically refers to the recycling of other people's visual compositions in new art works. at any rate citations would make this more convincing.

• I have taken a few art classes in college and one thing I remember is Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa (L.H.O.O.Q.) is considered "Dada" above all else. It would be fitting to move the Duchamp piece to that section.

As a side-note, the term L.H.O.O.Q. when said in French, makes the viewer/reader contribe to the debasement of art, something the Dada artist wanted. In French, the term L.H.O.O.Q when said aloud (like Lo-oak) means "hot ass." (KingYaba 05:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC))