It got me thinking about how that particular work really exists as a published magazine. That article was the heart of the concept and therefore in my eyes the artwork. Without the discourse, ‘Fountain’(1917) would never have made it into popular canon of art (high school art essays). Now we have the Internet as a format that can be used not only for documenting artworks and discussing artworks but also creating artworks. And now I’m back to ready-mades and I’ll throw in assisted ready-mades for good measure. So, in theory, one could use the digital domain to source for found objects. Anything from a jpeg to an animated GIF could be re-appropriated and argued as (lazy unclever) art.

But of course there is still the whole authorship/ownership/creative commons argument that is still happening. I will use a photograph of a backpack on a blog called failblog.org as my example. There is Failblog, which is recognized as the author of the image even though someone else took the photograph. This backpack was in a shop that belonged to someone else. It was designed by factory that belongs to someone else, using trademarks and images that belong to someone else. The geographical mileage on this particular image is astounding. What could possibly give me the right to steal it from Failblog and make it into a shitty gouache painting (my personal way of making an artwork less lazy). I am starting to see things unraveling.