Raise your hand if you have never viewed a work of art aside from the art you create. Raise your hand if as a child a teacher or parent never taught you to draw something -- or if you never decided to draw after observing other children doing it. All hands are down. Thus, from a philosophical standpoint one must agree that art-- in general-- can never truly be original. We are all influenced by the images of others -- and the very process of creation-- in some way regardless if we admit it or not.
We all learn from our collective visual tradition in some way. Painters -- how did you know to pick up a paintbrush? Sculptors -- how did you know that a lump of clay can be turned into something beyond natures intention? Photographers -- how did you know that a camera can be used for more than just taking family photos?
We know from living -- and from experiencing those who came before directly or indirectly. We are bombarded with art everyday -- especially in this age of the Internet. In that sense, even the medium we choose to use to express ourselves artistically is not an original direction -- it is not an original idea. Nothing is original -- we all build from the past. We are all part of a living visual history. Originality is defined in several ways.
It can be " the quality or state of being original ", the " freshness of aspect, design, or style " or the " power of independent thought or constructive imagination ". An original work of art is often defined as " a work of art that has not received from others nor one copied based on the work of others.
Read that definition again -- then ask yourself if it is possible for someone today to have not 'received' some form of influence from viewing art -- or to have not 'copied' the style of past works consciously or unconsciously. Again, in that sense originality does not exist. We all build from what we have seen. The first known use of the word 'originality' occurred in according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. In fact, prior to that time artists and other creatives prided themselves on having a connection to past works -- they embraced the similarities from one generation to the next.
An artist was only as good as his or her adaptation of past ideas and manner of creation. Yet today we see many artists who deny all connections -- they want to be the first.
Most artists use reference material, even having files of clippings from magazines and other sources. These include, electronic images, paper as well as their own photos, sketches etc. Artists use these as tools for inspiration and designing their art.
Part of the issue is the extent to which a reference is used originality when it comes from someone else copyright issues and whether you have the right to use the images.
The first issue is when painting from other peoples reference photos. A photo like art is protected by copyright. After all it was still another persons vision. However, there can be exceptions, but not in regards to originality. There could be the question of having a model release giving you the right to use that persons image.
I was in a workshop that had a cowboy model and I took my own photos. If I painted him in the future in such a way as to make him identifiable, I might wonder whether or not another model release was needed. There was an art show in connection with this workshop and the painting of him that I did sold.
A kind of massive ink jet printer. This has become a cheap way for painters to mass produce their works. Sometimes they can even go in and hand embellish parts of it, but its is NOT a respected nor artisinal art form.
Anything original or under prints. The hand pulled prints etchings, woodcuts etc fall into this catagory, but machine driven giclees do not. Oil paint is a great medium. Basically pigment in linseed oil.
0コメント