I was reading an interesting blog today at http://www.about.com/ that asked if art is original when it is a painting made from a photograph that the artist did not take herself?
I think it depends. What is the content of the photograph and where did it come from? The comment was that the photographer was the one to take the picture and it was her vision and her work. Ok. No one can take that away from her. It is her photograph.
Let’s say you do a search for Kahlo on Etsy or Fine Art America. You will most likely get several hits, many of which will be paintings. How many of those paintings where painted from a photograph that the artist took herself during a lunch with Frida? Maybe they come from memory, from personal experience. What if they came from memory but it was a memory of someone else’s photograph? This could really get ridiculous.
What about other art forms that may use a part of a print or copy in a collage or jewelry? Is that original artwork? What about the art made from transfers such as tracing paper and projectors? Is that original??
And I wonder if all the artists over the years that have painted Mt. Rushmore all painted in open air? What if an artist takes a photo of Mt. Rushmore? Is that original art? After all someone else did the design.
I have two pages at my website that are photographs that I am using with permission and are made available for public use. The content of the photograph is not at all original to the photographer; it is organic and NOT MAN MADE. Isn’t the photographer copying someone else’s work when she takes a nature pic? This in no way is an attempt to discredit photography; it is a wonderful and much needed medium and important tool for the arts and humanity. But when a painting is made there is nothing on the canvas, the artist is going to recreate and form a new image... from that photograph.
All creative people get their cues and ideas from somewhere, something, some place. A painting most certainly can be original when inspired from a photograph if the artist is using it as a guide, a tool. The painting will take on an identify of its own. If the painter wanted to, she could give credit and note that the painting was inspired by a photograph; she could even list the photographer. But her painting is her own.
The point is this; if it is your work, and it is coming out of you, and it is being expressed by you, then it will be an original work, your original work By the way, I would be so flattered if someone painted my jewelry.
http://painting.about.com/b/2008/03/10/monday-motivator-originality-isnt-painting-from-photos.htm?nl=1
I think it depends. What is the content of the photograph and where did it come from? The comment was that the photographer was the one to take the picture and it was her vision and her work. Ok. No one can take that away from her. It is her photograph.
Let’s say you do a search for Kahlo on Etsy or Fine Art America. You will most likely get several hits, many of which will be paintings. How many of those paintings where painted from a photograph that the artist took herself during a lunch with Frida? Maybe they come from memory, from personal experience. What if they came from memory but it was a memory of someone else’s photograph? This could really get ridiculous.
What about other art forms that may use a part of a print or copy in a collage or jewelry? Is that original artwork? What about the art made from transfers such as tracing paper and projectors? Is that original??
And I wonder if all the artists over the years that have painted Mt. Rushmore all painted in open air? What if an artist takes a photo of Mt. Rushmore? Is that original art? After all someone else did the design.
I have two pages at my website that are photographs that I am using with permission and are made available for public use. The content of the photograph is not at all original to the photographer; it is organic and NOT MAN MADE. Isn’t the photographer copying someone else’s work when she takes a nature pic? This in no way is an attempt to discredit photography; it is a wonderful and much needed medium and important tool for the arts and humanity. But when a painting is made there is nothing on the canvas, the artist is going to recreate and form a new image... from that photograph.
All creative people get their cues and ideas from somewhere, something, some place. A painting most certainly can be original when inspired from a photograph if the artist is using it as a guide, a tool. The painting will take on an identify of its own. If the painter wanted to, she could give credit and note that the painting was inspired by a photograph; she could even list the photographer. But her painting is her own.
The point is this; if it is your work, and it is coming out of you, and it is being expressed by you, then it will be an original work, your original work By the way, I would be so flattered if someone painted my jewelry.
http://painting.about.com/b/2008/03/10/monday-motivator-originality-isnt-painting-from-photos.htm?nl=1
No comments:
Post a Comment