Why is Sanja Ivekovic Plagiarizing From Wikipedia?

It’s appropriation when you like it, plagiarism when you don’t : P 

Plagiarism is absolutely conditioned by intent, a student who mis-cites something or drops a footnote without the intention of passing off the writing as their own is certainly not guilty of plagiarism, and would be given the chance (by any reasonable professor) to explain them self in this circumstance. I get that your murder comparison is hyperbolic for rhetorical effect, but it kind of disproves your point. The justice system separates manslaughter (unintentional death as the result of intentional actions) from premeditated murder because both are crimes, but of different degrees. Unintentional presentation of another person’s writing that might cause someone else to think it was one’s own writing isn’t punished at all, because it’s understood as a mistake and is not in the category of plagiarism.

I never suggested that something just “dropped” out of the PDF. I’m suggesting the possible scenario (which I think is more likely than “plagiarism”) that perhaps the artist was asked for supplementary material from an organizer, and tossed off the document without too much thought. I know when I’m emailing with friends or people with whom I’m discussing my work or ideas, I don’t generally follow standard academic conventions for citation or even always add links. The point is there is plenty of reason for doubt of intent here, or even of the idea that this document was produced by the artist with the intent that it be seen by anyone by the curators of Documenta.

Your argument is based on your imagination that the artist produced this document with the intention of passing off the writing as her own. My argument is based on the fact that there are many other plausible scenarios for the emergence of this document on Documenta’s website, and that you irresponsibly suggested that one (i.e. ‘plagiarism’) was demonstrably correct without contacting Documenta or the artist to see if the document was indeed created with that intent. Plagiarism is a very serious charge to level against someone, and is a word that carries a distinct connotation of connivance and dishonesty. Whether you like it or not, this blog (as admittedly silly as it is sometimes) projects a certain degree of authority in this community, and as such you have a responsibility not to smear people.

 Had you contacted Documenta and found they were aware of the “plagiarism”, or contacted the artist and came to the conclusion that she intended to present this writing as her own, I would have no problem with you writing an article quite similar to this that mentioned those facts. As it stands, you’re essentially smearing someone who is obviously not stupid enough to think that no one would notice that she ripped off Wikipedia text (which to me is the strongest indication that she probably did not intend to pass the writing off as her own).

Gossip is all well and good (I jumped right in to defend y’all in the comments on your post about Kinkade’s death), but if you want to gossip about artists in a way that could potentially damage their career or reputation, the responsibility lies with you to find out if what you’re saying is actually true. If not, you might as well put “World Weekly News” up top and start covering Batboy’s happenings in Saddam’s spider hole. 

The idea that “contacting Ivekovic makes no sense” is frankly absurd. Even if you really believe that it’s ok to infer intent to deceive from a shitty PDF with little contextualization on an exhibition’s website without even talking to the principals involved, I would think you would at least want to confront Ivekovic and find out what made her think she could get away with such a ~dastardly~ scheme.

Dictionary definitions are the recourse of weak arguments. You can play all the language games you want, but I would bet you my last nickel the vast majority of people would find it inappropriate to call anyone a plagiarist without giving them a chance to defend or explain themselves. It’s neither my responsibility to contact the artist nor to establish that actual narrative of what led to the posting of the PDF on Documenta; I’m not the one making the claim of plagiarism. It’s your responsibility as both a “journalist” and a member of this community to do your due diligence in establishing these things before you make an inflammatory post. As you (and I, in my previous response) said, it’s very unlikely that an artist with the intelligence and research history of Ivekovic is unfamiliar with standard practices in citing data, or that she would willfully publish something with the intent to pass of Wikipedia pages as her own work. I’m not patronizing her or suggesting that she be coddled in some way. What I’m suggesting is merely that there are equally plausible alternative narratives to willful plagiarism in this event. 

Even in the Northwestern page you link to, a distinction is drawn between “accidental” and intentional plagiarism. Though the same noun is used for both, the meaning is quite clearly differentiated. One is a forgivable mistake that can be (mostly) avoided by careful scholarship (even the most careful academic writers are capable of slipping up and missing a citation or creating an unaccredited paraphrase without a diligent editor), the other is the intentional misrepresentation of someone else’s words as your own (which is a shitty thing to do and tantamount to lying and stealing at the same time). The PDF is admittedly sloppy and of low quality, and it may even have been produced by Ivekovic with the express intent of being put on the Documenta site for all to see, but if you’re going to hold her (a non-writer presenting this information in a decidedly non-academic context) to a “higher standard”, it would seem that you should hold yourself to at least the basic standards of verification and investigations established for journalism. 

I don’t much care about what Ivekovic did here (I don’t know her, I’m not making claims about her work, and I think the idea of getting your knickers all twisted about what is most likely a little laziness or rushed work in a PDF is pretty silly) , and I doubt many other people do either. What I do care about is that a post like this can become the source of citations of its own, and a part of establishing the idea that someone like Ivekovic is a “plagiarist” (or whatever other name you happen to be calling an artist this week) as a fact. While the stakes are fairly low in this circumstance, as I said before you and this blog carry a certain amount of weight and authority in the community, and I think this kind of journalism does that community a disservice. 

Since you’re not even going to do me the basic courtesy of actually reading my comments and responding to them as they are (I never claimed to be quoting from that definition, I was offering my interpretation of it ~just as you were~), I’m not going to do you the courtesy of using nice words. I think it’s a dick move to call an artist a plagiarist in the title of a blog post on one of the most popular art related blogs on the internet. Whether or not you’re right about her “plagiarism” or the definition of plagiarism is totally besides the point. It’s completely discourteous, and a sensationalist move, to use such a harsh word against a member of the community that I don’t think even you would say was intentionally trying to do something wrong. 

As far as “making every part of that up”, I’m as entitled to my opinions as you are. I think you’re a dick for calling her a plagiarist, I think the fact that that NW study guide draws the distinction (and the fact that we don’t ream students OR academics who accidentally commit “plagiarism” and apologize for it) is evidence enough that errors of omission are forgivable. If you don’t think that anyone could make a citation mistake, you obviously haven’t read much. It’s incredibly common, just as typos and factual errors are common. People are people, not perfect writing machines. If you want to hold artists to a “higher standard” that’s your problem, not theirs, and you shouldn’t drag their names through the mud trying to make a point when you haven’t even asked the question posed by the title of your article to the relevant person. 

Paddy- If you really think that I was rude before that post, or that Will has not been rude to me throughout this discussion, I’d ask you to read back through and reconsider. Once again, I never said that the NW style guide said anything besides making a distinction between accidental and purposeful plagiarism. My interpretation of that, and the simple facts that I stated (students and academics are not excoriated for mistakes, only for willful plagiarism that is then usually denied), are all I referred to. The idea that me saying calling someone a plagiarist is a “dick move” in your comments and calling an artist a plagiarist in the title of a post on a rather well attended blog are at all equivalent is naïve at best. Whether you take yourselves seriously or not, lots of people do, and especially considering most people who read this post will never see the work in person (or even research the artist) it’s likely that they will form their opinions of Ivekovic’s work based on your writing. Whether that’s a responsibility you all want or not, it’s one you have.I get that you don’t like me, I don’t care. I really think that it is totally inappropriate to call an artist a plagiarist without actually investigating the issue. As you know the right of an artist to use appropriation as an artistic gesture is constantly under attack. Right now that right is in particular danger with the lawsuit against Richard Prince and the incessant efforts of the US government to give itself to power to censor the internet. It’s incredibly unhelpful to have a voice within the community calling someone who, as other commenters have noted, often uses “plagiarism” and copying as an artistic gesture what is essentially a dirty word. Will has defended himself solely on the dictionary definition of “plagiarism”, which isn’t even the argument I’m making. By the standard of those definitions most artistic gestures and a good deal of writing by artists made since say, 1960, would clearly fall into the category of plagiarism. From Andy Warhol to Ryan Trecartin, artists make use of other people’s work often without any citation or even nod to the original source, in order to engage with, subvert, and comment on the products of our culture. I was joking before when I said “It’s appropriation if you like it, plagiarism if you don’t” before, but now I’m not at all. Why should we hold Ivekovic’s writing to a different standard than we do her objects? Or a Prince painting? Or a Duchamp readymade? Just because it takes the guise of writing doesn’t mean you can assume that it’s not intended as an artistic gesture. Ivekovic’s past work suggests that it very well may be, and as I said before it’s simply irresponsible to decide otherwise without speaking with her. In actuality, Will may be right, this may be “Plagiarism”, intended or accidental. On the other hand it could be a painstakingly crafted gesture complete with a left behind partial citation. The point is, Will doesn’t know, so Will shouldn’t assume, and he certainly shouldn’t make it the title of a blog post without investigating the primary source: Ivekovic. It might not seem like a big deal to you, but when you smear a label like “plagiarism” onto someone it tends to stick, deserved or not.

Just so I get what you’re saying too: 

Either
a) Lifting text wholesale is plagiarism, and no regard should be given to claims of artistic gesture.
or
b) Someone’s opinion of the quality of a work of art’s quality is what determines whether or not an act of appropriation is legitimate?

If (a) my comment above spells out very clearly why it’s bad to have a double standard for words and objects when dealing with appropriation.

If (b), I think that’s an unhelpful argument to make. If appropriation is a legitimate artistic gesture, it’s a legitimate artistic gesture. Making a judgment about whether it’s legitimate or not based on the quality of the work plays into the hands of people who would rather that it disappear as a technique in general. Yes, I think if an artist intends something to be an act of appropriation as an artistic gesture, that’s what it is. It doesn’t mean that it was done well, or that it improves their work, but it definitely isn’t plagiarism.

And, once again, what I think is inappropriate is not the idea that someone could claim that something an artist has done is plagiarism, it’s that this circumstance is clearly a lot muddier than Will makes it out to be, and he should have done basic research by asking the artist before making a very public and inflammatory claim of academic dishonesty. It also seems like you don’t have any rejoinder to my argument that by dictionary definitions, most art that uses appropriation would be considered plagiarism, and I think that you would need to establish some pretty strict criteria if you want to be able to apply the word plagiarism to any kind of creative/artistic work (even writing).

Also if it’s not obvious that when I use “you” I’m referring to this blog, then maybe that’s my bad, but I don’t know you personally and that was the context I’ve used it in in this entire thread so I thought it was kind of obvious.

Her work is published. It’s public. You’d not contact an author to review/discuss a novel etc.