To Copy or Not to Copy?

There is often debate as to whether or not copying another artist work is OK.
Copying other Artist's work is something that has gone on for many years. Many of the works by the great masters have been copied by many a student. In doing so the student learns, and gets the feel for how the master painted. Looking at composition, perspective, colour, shapes and so much more. Whenever you look at this copied art, in most cases, there will be at least a trace or hint of the student. How can an artist create without putting some of themshelf into the piece.
The student takes what they learn and develops it further. Some will go on to create pieces using skills & techniques learnt but not in the same style. Others will create within the same style of the master but make it their own.
Today in the world of Mix Media & Alternative/Altered Art, I believe the same to be true. Many Artists publish books, articles in magazines, do DVDs and teach. A student learning from these masters will copy as a way of learning, particularly from books/magazines and DVDs as it can often be easier to learn the skill/technique by copying. As the student creates more work the similarities learnt from the master/s may still be there but as they develop more and more of themself is put in to the art.
Some Artists 'complain' that there are more people doing art similar to theirs but isn't that part and parcel of the fact that if you teach or publish you will have people doing similar work, and the more you teach the more people you will have doing it. Again, the work produced will not be the Original Masters work, similar yes, but there will be traces of the person that made it.
I beleive copying is OK as long as that person does not copy exactly and then try to pass off the work as their own, or does not give credit to the original artist. In most cases it can be obvious to a viewer that the artist is in the same style of someone else.
For me there are times I see a piece of art that I really like and can't get it out of my mind. I need to produce it, often I start and then the piece never gets finished. Then there are other times when I am stuck creatively I will pull down one of my many beautiful eye-candy or how-to books and look for something that I like and do something similar...as warm up or a way to get the creative juices flowing. It is also fun to create in the style of some one else. This can give us a push out of our comfort zone, stretch us further as an artist.

Comments

[Sharon Manning]

Ursula this is an issue that applies to anything and everything creative. I know there has been many a heated debate on some of the scrapbooking messageboards that I have been a part of where it is commonly known as scraplifting. I'm with you, how can you not "copy" someone elses work when quite often it is a technique or style that we want to incorporate into our own. As long as the artist is given credit and also that the piece is not identical but a unobvious merge, so to speak. Great topic that I think we could debate for hours over a drink or two!
Sharon
xxx

[JUDY WILKENFELD]

I do so like this discussion. I have many similar discussions with Michael and indeed Nina. Nina because we see her knots everywhere but other very well known artists have taken her concept/s and labelled it their own. In fact I was abhorred to find an artist's blog on which she called everything unique to her when in fact it's not - it's Nina's concepts and style - there was no change to this girls art - it was identical. The discussion with Michael comes about often as I ask him if he worries about teaching so many people his tecqniques etc etc. His response is "they don't have my eye". Yes I think if one learns techs from artists or uses a similar style but and only but-then creates something different - then it's ok. But I, like Sharon, believe in giving credit where credit is due! Amen and good topic.

[Julie H]

Interesting topic. I never set out to copy a piece of work - and yet at the same time can not claim to have a wholy original idea - after all I buy most mixed media books that come out and attend classes.

I am hooked on the Nina knot - and acknowledge it as such. However I am using it in a different style. I also assume that paying to attend a class where I am taught it entitles me to use it.

Oddly when I posted today I posted a piece based heavily on techniques learnt in Michaels class. I ended up acknowledging the class and not the work - as I thought that might be an insult to Michael (giggles).

I guess someone invented tapestry stitch - and I am betting it was not Ms Tapestry - and yet they are never acknowledged. At what point do we stop acknowledging the source? Will I be acknowledging the Nina knott for the next 30 years? At the end of the day it is just a messy version of soem quite common wire wrapping. At the opposite end of the scale I posted a OOAK ATC to a friend and it ended up on the home page for a mutual group. I then collected the ATC's for another groups swap and found two exact copies.

As you can see this is one I think about a lot too. I always err on the side of acknowledging too much rather than too little. Thanks for letting me share.

[Evelyn]

Love this topic, and have to agree, acknowledge where possible (I always try to) and be true to yourself - I can't scraplift at all but know others whos entire albums are exact - even right down to the papers used - that is what they like and that is how they work. I was at a scrapping retreat a couple of years ago. Max a close friend and well know Aussie scrapper was there, a group of 4 girls - including one who was well published too - each had a file/files of printed out layouts, at least three did exact copies if Max's layouts and didn't even realise it - we laughed and joked about it at 2am when they had gone to bed - on the last day we managed to "let slip" what they had done. They had come with full kits of the papers etc to make sure they were the same. That to me is wrong but was the way these girls worked - okay I am starting to ramble on a bit so will end this with a - good topic which could be talked about for hours.

[Megan Pickwell]

A tricky one Clam, but what is original art? does not every artist gain inspiration and teachings from some artist/style/technique that already exsists. Creating original Music has the same dilema. Throughout art history alot of artists that actually did create in a new style were rejected because of the differences, yet eventually new art movements followed each break from the norm, there was never just one impressionist, expressionist, surrealist, cubist, and so on, one began, and others followed.It I guess historically has been about pushing the boundaries of what already exsisted into a previously unexplored area. I am not sure where I am going or what I am really trying to say here, but I think the essence of it is that there is a significant difference between learning a technique or style and using this in your work and of creating a copy of someone elses artwork. Some of those we hold up as the greatest of masters were also the greatest copiers. I think deep down we know when we have created something unique and that we can label as our own original work, and it doesn't mean it may not carry the influences of another - but the important thing is th remain true to yourself. Today I had the priviledge of teaching an extremely talented group of quite traditional water colour artisits who wanted to learn some different techniques using different materials of creating backgrounds with texture. They all saw the same demonstration, using the same materials, things I had learnt by reading, trial and error, attending workshops, looking at artworks etc etc, they all without exception produced a new original background that all were so different, so were they original?
Mxx

[Lysh]

Everyone copies.

When a landscape artist takes some equipment and wanders into the great outdoors, he or she is copying mother nature. (Fortunately for the landscape artist, mother nature hasn't yet discovered copyright.) When fantasy artists draw creatures that do not exist they still copy elements. Dragons, fairies and the like all have elements of our natural world - whether they are clawed feet, bat like wings or even the delicate butterfly or moth wings often used for fairies.

In this sense, I believe everyone copies; because it is inherent in the creative process.

Yet Ursula's musings are more about deliberating "copying" someone's style. Again I agree with her. I have many art books - paintings and photography - and sometimes I will just sit and sketch exactly what I see. I have sketched from some of my favourite artists - Gil Bruvel, Michael Parkes, James Christensen and some old masters as well. When I do this, I never consider it my art - because it isn't. I will write in my sketchbook the original artist and work and consider this part of my learning. This is like learning to spell; finding words that suit each other; before going out on your own and writing a piece.

Then there is my next level of "copying". These are where I introduce an element of me but they are largely drawn from another source. For example, I've taken the Black and White Alice drawings by Tenniel and enjoyed trying to draw and paint them with my own colour scheme. Again, I don't consider these my work - just my learning.

Then there's the level where I can take a flavour of another work and try to make it my own. I love the chessboards James Christensen and Ilene Meyer use; I love some of the colours of Mary Todd Beam; I enjoy the weird "hair" of Gil Bruvel characters; so I'm sure that if you look through my work you chess boards, Mary Todd Beam colour schemes and Bruvel hair!

Then there's copyright... I adore collage and given that I don't sell or publish any of my work at the moment, I use whatever images I find. I think taking an image of an animal from a calendar and putting it in a completely new construction, with new colours, new flavours and style is not copying and I struggle to believe that it should be copyrighted either. I ask myself if I had taken a photograph (like many that I use from calendars) say of my cat and then someone took my cat picture and placed it in a totally new work would I think that was still mine... I don't think I would. If they published my cat photo and just tweaked the colour a bit, maybe I would.

Copyright law talks about significance to a piece, rather than size. I consider some of the calendar images I use very significant to the work and ergo they are probably still copyrighted.

Lastly there's plagiarism. This is what I think some people refer to as copying - or scraplifting... a new term for me!

It's never acceptable to me to plagiarise.

So considering all that, creating is much like writing an essay at university.

Plagiarism is not permitted.

Referencing means it isn't plagiarism but if you don't add any of your own ideas then it isn't really yours either.

Referencing plus your own ideas is good...

and well your own ideas without any referencing in the eyes of the university means that you aren't very well read!

So I'll take that as support for some copying (with references) and some personal imagination.

Lysh

[Coby]

Hi Ursula,

There is much talk in the cardmaking world about copyright as it is fairly common for people to "case" the cards of other people without giving credit. Another problem since the advent of blogs and online galleries is the practice of copying images of cards and posting them on blogs and in galleries as the copiers own work. As a result of these practices, many card makers are adding watermarks to their online card images and including copyright notices on their blogs in an attempt to protect their work.

I have never understood why people would scraplift a layout or case a card. It does not sit well with me and I do not really see how the process could be a learning exercise. In the case of cardmaking and scrapbooking, I believe that practice makes perfect. Copying does not make perfect.

Mixed media art is a different kettle of fish.

A great discussion, thank you!!

love Coby

[Kristen R]

I love this post it encompasses so much! It is interesting how vulnerable we all are now with the age of the internet. Although imitation is said to be the biggest form of flattery, I too have a problem with others passing techinques off as their own. One can only hope that others will do the right thing and give credit where credit is due! Thanks again for a wonderful post!!!!!

XO
Kristen

[marie c]

My background is in scrapbooking where copying (it has it's own term - "scraplifting"!) seems to be readily accepted - I have commented on peoples great layouts only to find some time after the same LO by someone else and then again by a third person.... none of them ever acknowledged the fact that it was not their own idea. It's a bit out-of-control in the scrapping world, but also started as a way to learn and extend techniques.

It doesn't seem to happen much in mixed-media stuff does it? Anyhow....I think if it's a technique (as most things pub'd in CPS are) applied to your own ideas, then that is fine... if you are reproducing an idea or design then you give credit.

:)