RE: Deravitive work, or just learning

roteague — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:54:49 GMT

Tom,

I thought your response was perfect. I read the blog and looked at the "derivitive" work, and didn't see any real problems with it. In the beginning, we all learn by copying, to some respect, other people's work. The mark of a craftsman is learning from that and moving on.

RE: Deravitive work, or just learning

Toffle — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:50:34 GMT

[quote][b]roteague (7/1/2008)[/b][hr]"Blog Readers Catch Plagiarizing Photographer

Yesterday, art buyer and blogger Heather Morton published a link to a photographer's online photo portfolio she liked. It didn't take long for other photographers to notice that the work looked a little... derivative. How derivative?"

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/07/blog-readers-ca.html
http://www.heathermorton.ca/blog/?p=614

So, when does this turn from copying an idea for a photograph and outright copycat work?[/quote]

Very interesting and thought provoking. There is of course an underlying integrity issue that needs to be addressed. This becomes somewhat clouded when you consider the fact that it does not seem as though the "photographer in question" was attempting to make money from his use of the stylized images. Maybe he was just trying to learn the necessary techniques to create what he considered beautiful images, in which case he is probably not that different from any of us.

One might say in any case that all art is derivative. One might say that the very rules of composition encourage some level of derivation, if not outright plagiarism. We have the rule of thirds, the rule of converging diagonals, rules that define appropriate use of active and passive space in an image. How many great photographers have I copied in creating an image like this? [img]http://tomoverton.images.googlepages.com/lonetreewithsky.jpg/lonetreewithsky-full;init:.jpg[/img]

How many photographers have literally tried to find the remnants of Ansel Adams' tripod marks in an attempt at experiencing something of the greatness he created in his images. This past weekend, at Photostock 2008, we viewed many fine portfolios, then were given guided tours of the locations where many of the images were created. How could this not encourage copying of the outstanding images we were shown?

I am particularly fond of long exposures wherein flowing water undergoes an etherial transformation. I've shot a few of these myself:
[img]http://tomoverton.images.googlepages.com/image0-1.jpg/image0-1-full;init:.jpg[/img]
I have no idea who first came up with this concept, but it is intriguing to say the least. I know I am not alone in imitating this style.

How do I excuse this blatant copying of someone else's form? In several ways: First, I consider myself a student of the art. When I see an image I like, I often try to devise way(s) of achieving a similar effect. It is how I learn. Second, the Sistine Chapel is an outstanding masterpiece of art of undeniable merit. However, in the history of art there are countless other renderings of religious iconography that are derivative of this singular work. Many of these derivations are notable and worthy works in their own right. Third, whenever I take my camera out of its case, I do so with the intent of creating [b][i]my own[/i][/b] images. What I do with my camera, in studying the composition, lighting, tonal range, etc., is my own work.

A final point (or two) When I teach the blues to my grade 9 Music classes, I teach them the cliches that make the blues an effective song form. When my students create their own work, they are expected to be able to use those cliches in an effective form. I make sure that they realize that they are essentially copying the elements of style, but I stress to them that this is the way that they will learn to create their own music. By the time these students reach their graduating year, they are expected to pave new roads within (or without) the genres they have studied. Once again, it is the way we learn.

Art is derivative. Somewhere along the way, some of us will create new pathways... through talent or technique or just plain luck. Some of us will have to be content with standing in the shadows of giants as we learn from their example.

Sorry for the long-winded response. (which probably does not address the issue at hand)

Cheers,
Tom

Deravitive work, or just learning

roteague — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:08:55 GMT

"Blog Readers Catch Plagiarizing Photographer

Yesterday, art buyer and blogger Heather Morton published a link to a photographer's online photo portfolio she liked. It didn't take long for other photographers to notice that the work looked a little... derivative. How derivative?"

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/07/blog-readers-ca.html
http://www.heathermorton.ca/blog/?p=614

So, when does this turn from copying an idea for a photograph and outright copycat work?

TraditionalPhotographer.NET / General Discussion / Ethics and Philosophy / Deravitive work, or just learning / Latest Posts

RE: Deravitive work, or just learning

RE: Deravitive work, or just learning

Deravitive work, or just learning