Artistic appropriation is omnipresent in today’s art world. Some artists even argue it has become impossible to create art without appropriating anything — Dixit Adrian Ghenie. The general discourse is that there is no longer such thing as originality—a sentence where Julien Delagrange adds a question mark at the end. Appropriation or recycling images has become one of the most common practices today; sampling found imagery and recycling them into new artworks. Some good old-fashion postmodern appropriation. Or isn’t it? Appropriation today has become increasingly problematic. It is no longer a parody of the source material in question, criticizing aspects of its original context, often using irony, humor, and satire. It has become a strategy to use images as stock images. Why create or invent an image if all images you could possibly need already exist? Especially when artists start to appropriate without any obvious reference; their only interest is the visual aspects of the image in question.

The Forbidden Reproductions address the issue of artists using recycled images as stock images. If your appropriation is not a parody, it must be a homage in the form of a clear quote. For instance, with the drawings after Pina Bausch in The Passion series, the source material is being used in a clear and genuine manner. Or, when you aim to recycle the images for merely visual purposes, you must be open about this—almost taboo—act by the artist. From this perspective, the Forbidden Reproductions originate from visual searches in image databases such as Google Images, Pinterest or stock images, in order to find the picture the artist envisions for the drawing. A conceptual and uncanny game, in which the so-called disegno- interno (cf. Michelangelo) is very close compared to the actual image that was selected. With just a few artistic interventions, the image is recycled and called to a halt by the act of drawing.

What once was an image out of a million others, drowning in the flood of images of the 21st century, is now engaging in an art historical dialogue due to the selected medium. Authorship, intellectual property, originality, simulacra; questioning a world in which all images seem to exist. There is this luring ambiguity between the power of the final result and the forbidden character of the appropriation addressing the aforementioned issues, but simultaneously, being the devil’s advocate saying ‘yes’ to this problematic and ubiquitous visual strategy. An important notion throughout these taboo images is their juxtaposition with honesty. They do not deny or hide the original source; they celebrate it. The artwork becomes a parody of itself. In addition, Delagrange juxtaposes the unoriginal imagery with the honesty of the object; the wooden panels made by the artist himself, starting from scratch. The coloured border is reminiscent of Minimal Art and contemporary abstraction—accentuating the imperfections and honesty of the handmade object and adding a visual signature beyond the image an sich.