Sparrow
Veteran
Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Or is plagiarism the worst of all thefts?
Or is plagiarism the worst of all thefts?
M. Valdemar
Well-known
The idea that one does anything original is a conceit.
Gumby
Veteran
It is time to close this thread - the TRUTH has been spoken. (I agree, BTW!)
To answer Stew's question: flattery.
To answer Stew's question: flattery.
Avotius
Some guy
"I who can be anything choose to be like you"
There is something to be said about echoing the greats, many of the people here do, HCB, Capa, Frank, etc. but there is a difference between being inspired though an idea and just plain copying it.
There is something to be said about echoing the greats, many of the people here do, HCB, Capa, Frank, etc. but there is a difference between being inspired though an idea and just plain copying it.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
imitation is fine. Art is mimesis, i.e. imitation. Imitation of nature, imitation of something, in most cases. Imitation allows for further developpment of styles and artists. Imitation creates schools, waves, even trends (in the good sense).
If you pretend that you invented it and don't give credit to the original even when questioned about the originality of your copied stuff, that is plagiarism and it is B A D.
It is bad in literature, it is bad in science, it is bad in photography.
If you pretend that you invented it and don't give credit to the original even when questioned about the originality of your copied stuff, that is plagiarism and it is B A D.
It is bad in literature, it is bad in science, it is bad in photography.
Finder
Veteran
But does originality imply new or different?
Sparrow
Veteran
Then how did it start?M. Valdemar said:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
If he wasn't dead you could ask Richard Feynman.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Finder said:
Doesn't being different almost always implies being new? at least to a particular generation.
Also, in art, I like interpretation or impression better than imitation, but the worse of the bunch is replication.
Sparrow
Veteran
M. Valdemar said:
What then was the origin of art?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A thought experiment (or do it in real life if you like).
Copy another's work as faithfully as you can.
There are two possibilities. Your work will be indistinguishable from your hero's/heroine's, or it will be different. If it is indistinguishable, you can ask yourself if you're happy with this: with always being in the shadow of your exemplar, or with replicating existing photographs.
If it can be distinguished, there are again two possibilities. One is that it is worse. The other is that it is different; maybe even better.
If it is worse, ask yourself why, and what you can learn. This is where many people waste many years on the Zone System. They're technically incompetent, and they have no vision. Learning N+, N-, Placement and all the jargon is a lot easier than taking pictures, so that's what they do.
(This is not to decry the Zone System, which is an interesting subset of sensitometry and has taugh many people many things. It is merely to decry technique as a substitute for vision. By all means study technique, but do not study technique exclusively. TAKE PICTURES.)
If it is as good, or better... Well, you're already on the way to being your own photographer, and you've learned a lot from imitation. Sounds OK to me.
Cheers,
R.
Copy another's work as faithfully as you can.
There are two possibilities. Your work will be indistinguishable from your hero's/heroine's, or it will be different. If it is indistinguishable, you can ask yourself if you're happy with this: with always being in the shadow of your exemplar, or with replicating existing photographs.
If it can be distinguished, there are again two possibilities. One is that it is worse. The other is that it is different; maybe even better.
If it is worse, ask yourself why, and what you can learn. This is where many people waste many years on the Zone System. They're technically incompetent, and they have no vision. Learning N+, N-, Placement and all the jargon is a lot easier than taking pictures, so that's what they do.
(This is not to decry the Zone System, which is an interesting subset of sensitometry and has taugh many people many things. It is merely to decry technique as a substitute for vision. By all means study technique, but do not study technique exclusively. TAKE PICTURES.)
If it is as good, or better... Well, you're already on the way to being your own photographer, and you've learned a lot from imitation. Sounds OK to me.
Cheers,
R.
Sparrow
Veteran
Gumby said:
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it"
Andre Gide
R
RML
Guest
Pherdinand said:
Hear hear!
Pablito
coco frío
Aesthetics is for artists what ornithology is for birds. (Barnett Newman)
ChadHahn
Established
If you look through a book of Anne Leibowitz photos and a book of classic photos you'll see that she thinks it's the sincerest form of flattery.
lZr
L&M
Some people looking at Daly's art in his presense said: "You are very talented man". He said with anger: "I am not talented. I am genius!" Was that conceit?
ddutchison
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Those are not two sides of the same coin. Imitation is done for the purpose of teaching yourself, plagiarism is done for the purpose of deceiving others. Both your statements can be true.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Sparrow said:
Colton was being sarcastic when he wrote that line.
Sparrow
Veteran
Kevin said:
I would have said ironically, but yes, that’s how I understood it
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Sparrow said:
Imitation has become something of a sport over at Flickr. If a successful image makes it to Explore, dozens or even hundreds of stylistic copies are uploaded soon thereafter.
Apparently there are a lot of visionless snappers over there who do not quite understand the *irony* of Colton's statement - they think it's perfectly okay to copy one or more central aspects of a successful image they've seen before.
I think it's rotten.