Is copying someone else’s work a problem? if so, what kind of problem is it? Economic, artistic, moral? And where do you draw the line between when the similarity between two artworks is okay and when it’s not?
🔥 This is a hot and sensitive topic, let’s keep it civil and productive ;)
The internet is a strange place our images to exist in. From social media to screenshots, from screenshots to moodboards, from moodboards to eyes, they escape us. Like all of you, I agree that mimicry is at the core of an artist's learning process from others, just like it is for any human learning from another. But when someone copies another, there need to be a warning, an awareness that all we have access to is the final result of what is in reality a long process of making and unmaking. The style is not the goal, it's a byproduct. Giving talks on style and being asked the eternal question "how do i find my style?" I always answer that first one needs to become someone, and to know what kind of person we are.
Generative AI is precipitating a horizon in which we'll only have images and styles up for grab, without the people whose experiences have created them. Like empty shells, traces of past presence and lives, that now could be reproduced infinitely for the insatiable digital appetite for content. I think this is important because all the images we have access to today are only existing because of a delicate balance between an ecology of artists learning from each other (as Nythia and Ella mentioned) and an economy of artworks circulating and generating income for them. One hardly goes without the other. I often think these conversations would look very different if we had UBI for example, imagining how that would re-articulate the relationship between these ecology and economy.
In practice, as Jay mentioned, I think there is an increasing tendency, anchored in a lack of visual literacy, to look at images as empty shells instead of as vessels of ideas, concepts, care, in a word, humanity. If illustrators were valued more, they'd be brought on board earlier on projects, to contribute a vision and not just a visual. They wouldn't be seen as replaceable or equivalent, because they wouldn't be reduced to the look of the images they make.
I think plagiarism is so interesting because it touches upon the interface between this ecology of artists and the economy of artworks, in ways that force us to look at the messy entanglements between the two, no matter how uncomfortable this is.
I've never been plagiarised, so I don't know how it feels. But intellectually, I'm not sure I'd mind. I guess if someone copied my work exactly and then used it for profit, I would, but in any other case: Copying portions of the work, say its composition or style, or copying it exactly but not generating profit from it, I can't imagine that I would care much. I wonder if you've seen Nina Paley's "All Creative Work is Derivative". It informs a lot of my thinking on this issue.My work is derivative too, because it builds on so much that came before. So I'm fine with someone deriving some insight from my work and building on it. More power to them.
You’re a craftsperson. You love making furniture out of wood. You set out to make one chair a day, changing, altering, improving your skills. You invest twenty years of your life to travelling around learning every technique. You take influence and guidance from masters. You see interesting things in the rest of the world that inform your practice, writers, architects, musicians, artists. You’re constantly thinking of how to adapt your chair with the the growing influence from all these sources. You still don’t think you’ve perfected that chair and influence continues. But eventually you decide to set up shop. The chair you have is a success, people are buying it.
Another skilled maker opens a shop next door and sells a chair similar to yours. Because they’ve seen the success of that chair and they have the ability to make it. But they sell it for half the price.
As I know you’re aware Julien. I made my feelings about it relatively clear in a few posts on insta. I say relatively because I’m still settling some thoughts and thinking about it. I do see the value in taking influence from people, I do it. But it’s also about knowing how to take influence and not just to take. On Jullien’s last post I felt (I’m not sure how others felt) that if I was box ticking those categories - I’d probably have a good case to tick them all. And the experience unsettled and upset me a lot. I feel so connected to my work for so many reasons that it was really hurtful. I don’t tend to be emotional or protective about my work. A lot of it was concerning my own set of principles, including ‘authenticity’ which I thought were shared by the creative community, I work by them strictly. And it makes the job difficult, but ultimately rewarding.
I honestly couldn’t sleep. I was stressed constantly about it for over a month.
Generally I’m not overly bothered. I see things like my work a lot. I tend to think that the kind of work I make isn’t revolutionary or massively unique in any way. It’s probably very easy for people to find their way to doing something similar. Although I do have nuance and idiosyncrasies in my work that I feel are fairly unique. There’s a lot to it as well; It’s not just the work made, but livelihood, identity, building a reputation as a good professional, a nice person to work with, the list goes on.
The circumstances surrounding what happened to me, which point heavily toward getting someone to do a more cost effective version of what I do! And that someone being willing to do that, is not ok. Out in the free world just making things for fun or for learning, no problem at all. Have at it!
There’s just way more to building a career than just the ‘product’ you offer. I have 15 years (plus) of hard work, relationship making, compromise, etc. That also contribute to ill feelings. And when someone is willing to attempt to copy (or do something similar to) your work for money, and being instructed to by an art director. It’s gross. It makes me feel sick thinking of all the times I have said no to and pushed back on art directors trying to get me to do the same thing. And having uncomfortable conversations with them about it. Because I care about the integrity of other artists and my own. Following the instruction of a lazy AD who ideally wants to commission someone else, but can’t afford them or the illustrator is too busy. Then getting them to imitate that artists work. The practice itself is horrible and it’s becoming more prevalent.
If AD’s were doing their job properly (and I’ve had the pleasure of working with many amazing art directors) they find an alternative illustrator they can work with and get the best out of them, using their practice. There’s so many ways to communicate something, there’s no need to encourage similarity because they didn’t get their first choice or don’t have the person who’s on their mood board. In my view Illustrators sell themselves on how well they are able to communicate something, that is the skill. Not the style or the aesthetic - although these are a large component of how effective the communication is.
Sorry for rambles. There’s so much to this and so many layers. I haven’t even scratched the surface here. I’m
I found all my old A-Level work the other day, and it was all studies/aka copies of drawings and paintings from Leonardo, Michelangelo, Degas, Schiele, etc... I know I learned loads from those. So I think doing an artists study can be really useful, but only as part of your studio practice. I’ve worked really hard to find my visual language (style) and would be really upset if someone was mimicking it in their work. But at the same time, I find it quite inspiring when I see artists, like the ones at Great Bardfield, Ravilious, Bawden, Marx, clearly taking inspiration from each other, and it becomes almost like jazz, with them all riffing off each other.
The internet is a strange place our images to exist in. From social media to screenshots, from screenshots to moodboards, from moodboards to eyes, they escape us. Like all of you, I agree that mimicry is at the core of an artist's learning process from others, just like it is for any human learning from another. But when someone copies another, there need to be a warning, an awareness that all we have access to is the final result of what is in reality a long process of making and unmaking. The style is not the goal, it's a byproduct. Giving talks on style and being asked the eternal question "how do i find my style?" I always answer that first one needs to become someone, and to know what kind of person we are.
Generative AI is precipitating a horizon in which we'll only have images and styles up for grab, without the people whose experiences have created them. Like empty shells, traces of past presence and lives, that now could be reproduced infinitely for the insatiable digital appetite for content. I think this is important because all the images we have access to today are only existing because of a delicate balance between an ecology of artists learning from each other (as Nythia and Ella mentioned) and an economy of artworks circulating and generating income for them. One hardly goes without the other. I often think these conversations would look very different if we had UBI for example, imagining how that would re-articulate the relationship between these ecology and economy.
In practice, as Jay mentioned, I think there is an increasing tendency, anchored in a lack of visual literacy, to look at images as empty shells instead of as vessels of ideas, concepts, care, in a word, humanity. If illustrators were valued more, they'd be brought on board earlier on projects, to contribute a vision and not just a visual. They wouldn't be seen as replaceable or equivalent, because they wouldn't be reduced to the look of the images they make.
I think plagiarism is so interesting because it touches upon the interface between this ecology of artists and the economy of artworks, in ways that force us to look at the messy entanglements between the two, no matter how uncomfortable this is.
I've never been plagiarised, so I don't know how it feels. But intellectually, I'm not sure I'd mind. I guess if someone copied my work exactly and then used it for profit, I would, but in any other case: Copying portions of the work, say its composition or style, or copying it exactly but not generating profit from it, I can't imagine that I would care much. I wonder if you've seen Nina Paley's "All Creative Work is Derivative". It informs a lot of my thinking on this issue.My work is derivative too, because it builds on so much that came before. So I'm fine with someone deriving some insight from my work and building on it. More power to them.
An analogy:
You’re a craftsperson. You love making furniture out of wood. You set out to make one chair a day, changing, altering, improving your skills. You invest twenty years of your life to travelling around learning every technique. You take influence and guidance from masters. You see interesting things in the rest of the world that inform your practice, writers, architects, musicians, artists. You’re constantly thinking of how to adapt your chair with the the growing influence from all these sources. You still don’t think you’ve perfected that chair and influence continues. But eventually you decide to set up shop. The chair you have is a success, people are buying it.
Another skilled maker opens a shop next door and sells a chair similar to yours. Because they’ve seen the success of that chair and they have the ability to make it. But they sell it for half the price.
As I know you’re aware Julien. I made my feelings about it relatively clear in a few posts on insta. I say relatively because I’m still settling some thoughts and thinking about it. I do see the value in taking influence from people, I do it. But it’s also about knowing how to take influence and not just to take. On Jullien’s last post I felt (I’m not sure how others felt) that if I was box ticking those categories - I’d probably have a good case to tick them all. And the experience unsettled and upset me a lot. I feel so connected to my work for so many reasons that it was really hurtful. I don’t tend to be emotional or protective about my work. A lot of it was concerning my own set of principles, including ‘authenticity’ which I thought were shared by the creative community, I work by them strictly. And it makes the job difficult, but ultimately rewarding.
I honestly couldn’t sleep. I was stressed constantly about it for over a month.
Generally I’m not overly bothered. I see things like my work a lot. I tend to think that the kind of work I make isn’t revolutionary or massively unique in any way. It’s probably very easy for people to find their way to doing something similar. Although I do have nuance and idiosyncrasies in my work that I feel are fairly unique. There’s a lot to it as well; It’s not just the work made, but livelihood, identity, building a reputation as a good professional, a nice person to work with, the list goes on.
The circumstances surrounding what happened to me, which point heavily toward getting someone to do a more cost effective version of what I do! And that someone being willing to do that, is not ok. Out in the free world just making things for fun or for learning, no problem at all. Have at it!
There’s just way more to building a career than just the ‘product’ you offer. I have 15 years (plus) of hard work, relationship making, compromise, etc. That also contribute to ill feelings. And when someone is willing to attempt to copy (or do something similar to) your work for money, and being instructed to by an art director. It’s gross. It makes me feel sick thinking of all the times I have said no to and pushed back on art directors trying to get me to do the same thing. And having uncomfortable conversations with them about it. Because I care about the integrity of other artists and my own. Following the instruction of a lazy AD who ideally wants to commission someone else, but can’t afford them or the illustrator is too busy. Then getting them to imitate that artists work. The practice itself is horrible and it’s becoming more prevalent.
If AD’s were doing their job properly (and I’ve had the pleasure of working with many amazing art directors) they find an alternative illustrator they can work with and get the best out of them, using their practice. There’s so many ways to communicate something, there’s no need to encourage similarity because they didn’t get their first choice or don’t have the person who’s on their mood board. In my view Illustrators sell themselves on how well they are able to communicate something, that is the skill. Not the style or the aesthetic - although these are a large component of how effective the communication is.
Sorry for rambles. There’s so much to this and so many layers. I haven’t even scratched the surface here. I’m
I found all my old A-Level work the other day, and it was all studies/aka copies of drawings and paintings from Leonardo, Michelangelo, Degas, Schiele, etc... I know I learned loads from those. So I think doing an artists study can be really useful, but only as part of your studio practice. I’ve worked really hard to find my visual language (style) and would be really upset if someone was mimicking it in their work. But at the same time, I find it quite inspiring when I see artists, like the ones at Great Bardfield, Ravilious, Bawden, Marx, clearly taking inspiration from each other, and it becomes almost like jazz, with them all riffing off each other.