Example: If I saw some amazing images... and we all claim that the image is what is important... If I did copy work and handprinted exact copies, technically if the image alone is what is important don't my new versions being just as good as the originals deserve equal merit? They aren't the same as the original because of issues OTHER THAN what the image is. I guess motivation does come into play here.
Originally Posted by Eric Rose
I don't know about you guys, but I'm on my way to the slot canyons to get me a picture of a twisty orange cavern with a single beam of light shinning down. No one's done that shot before...
If you title it "Bell Pepper in the style of Weston", then your totally in the clear. Simlarly you can put it in the "artists statement" - totally OK. It may be a derrived work, it may be you'd run into copyright issues (I don't know - thats a whole other ball game), but ethically you're totally in the clear. You've produced your own work, fully acknoweding Westons input - it's then up to the viewer to decide it YOU have brought anything new and worthwhile to the subject, but they do that with the appropriate information.
Originally Posted by Digidurst
On the other hand if you were to tell me a story about how you were making chilli one day, and were struck by an artistic vision... Or you deny ever having heard of Weston, than you're trying to pass off someone elses ideas as your own. That makes you a naughty boy...
In the case of something as famous as the peppers, you'd be on safe(ish) ground assuming that people would recognise it, and could get away with an implicit reference. For a more obscure original artist you probably should make the reference explicit, just to have a clear conscience.
Originally Posted by Eric Rose
I don't really consider this plagiarism, and I think being influenced by another photorapher can have very satisfying results. I think many photographers' work is derivative of others' work, but I believe that is the nature of the creative process. I think going through this process may eventually lead you to a more original work.
If you tried to sell your version of the rock as a Kirby, then I'd have to call that plagiarism... or forgery.
My 2 cents.
Technically, that would make me a naughty girl
Originally Posted by 127
This is a thread that I am very interested in reading.
I live in Santa Fe New Mexico. A place that every famous and non-famous photographer has come to and we all photograph the same things.
Look at Rancheros de Taos. Black Rock Mesa. White Sands. Taos Pueblo. The list goes on and on.
I live about 30 minutes from a beautiful church that lies below black rock mesa. Go to http://www.donkirbyphotography.com/ and check out the new work section. This is a great place to photograph. A local charity is going to have a show of just pictures of this church at black rock mesa.
So, if I go out and photograph this place with a red filter on a storm cloudy day, is it plagarism? (BTW, a fence blocks access to the church). I am not sure.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
When the Vermeer exhibit came to the Met in NYC, his art was presented with a number of other Flemish masters. It was, in fact, not always easy to identify Vermeer's work from his contemporaries. The baroque and classical eras in music are similarly sometimes referred to as the 'period of common practice'. Composers were not attempting to create unique and original visions, but to practice their art in a way most people would recognize as fitting and appropriate in the style of the era. When someone did break new ground, others followed insofar as they could utilize the new technics themselves. Hence one encounters 'schools' and 'ism's...acceptance gave permission to make art according to the 'new' imperatives of impressionism, chromaticism, serialism, expressionism and etc, etc.
When you put your tripod in the holes left by another photographer in the same light with the same lens, you are clearly (imho) committing plagerism. When you do large format, modernistic, black and white photogrqaphy at Point Lobos, however, you're subscribing to the vision of the Westons and other masters...."Yes! I see! There's much here to work with." They get the greater 'credit' because they discovered the site perhaps, but nothing more. Otherwise, all those dunes and slit canyons, and Yosemigraphs, and Lobosgraphs and Tuscanisms have to be discarded, the photographers arrested, and their eyes gouged out. ;-)
Too much is made of 'originality' for its own sake.
I look at it like writing. If I had a photo from another artist and sold it as if I made it then I have plagerised it. If I set up a Keenaesque photo I would just be copying and not well respected until I found my own voice or "style"
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
This is an interesting thread. Plagiarism is copying what someone else wrote and passing it off as your own body of work. I think emulation is a better term for photography. Nobody can really plagiarize another's photo unless you take a copy of that photo and say that you are the photographer. How many times has half-dome been photographed? Just because Ansel did it "best" does that make the next guy a plagiarist. I think not. Just because a poet writes about the sea, and you write about the sea, does that make you a plagiarist? No.
We all have photographers works that we admire. Maybe we even strive to be as accomplished as they were either in acceptance, technical merit, or how many bucks they made while living. We are all influenced by the work of others, whether it is music, painting, skateboarding, or photography.
So, if I admire the work of John Shaw, and I take macro photographs, does that make me a plagiarist? No, we just use the same tools.
Emulate = to use the same style or subject matter of photography as someone else;
Copy = to place a photo on a copy stand and rephotograph it
Plagiarize = to take that copied photo and say you did it
Forgery = to take a photo and sign Weston's name to it...
Procrastinate = to think about taking pictures, but instead spend all of ones time at the computer
Interesting analysis. I suppose there are those that never grow beyond the "emulate" stage. After a while maybe they even delude themselves into thinking they are actually doing something original, which philosophically might be construed as plagiarizim.
Originally Posted by mfobrien
My little Collins Dictionary says: emulate-strive to equal or excel; imitate.
As I've said before I feel we all go thru this stage, but those that never progress any further could drop the "late" off emulate and thus be defined as an Emu. A flightless bird. Looks like a photographer, talks like a photographer, uses a photographers tools, but has no originality or depth of consciousness. I guess they are just photographers and not artists.
I know I'm pushing things here, but it's to generate discussion. I know there are some that abhor originality for originalities sake. In a lot of cases this might be valid, but if there is no originality where does that leave us?
The focus of the meaning of originality needs to be clarified. Mature work that reflects the unique vision of the photogrpher is, a priori, original because no one else sees in exactly that way. That makes originality, defined in this way, inevitable. But, originality for its' own sake, is by definition false, because originality becomes the focus of the artist rather than honesty toward the subject of the artwork.
Originally Posted by Eric Rose