To continue my discussion on originality (see previous post), here are some areas that are not so straight forward.

Photo transfers
      If an image is mechanically reproduced and transferred to a surface and the artist then paints over and around it, is it still original? To me, it’s a matter of degree. If the transferred image is only a small part of the painting, then I would not consider this a problem. If however, the transferred image represents most of the painting, then it’s not really ’painted’ by the artist, but rather ’coloured’, or ’enhanced’. That painting is no longer an original.

Drawing aids
      Some people use various aids to transfer their image onto the painting surface. Some use grids, some use tracing paper, some project the image directly onto the canvas and copy it. Does that make the work any less of an original? I don’t believe so. Since it’s a painting, not a drawing, then the work must still be painted and the initial drawing, whether done completely freehand or with some help, is only the base upon which the painting will be built. I don’t believe that affects the originality of the work as long as the source was original to the artist to begin with.

Hand-Embellished Reproductions
      Some artists have their work reproduced on canvas and then they proceed to add a few (or many) brushstrokes to enhance and perhaps change the painting somewhat. Unless they completely repaint the image so that it is substantially different, then it is not an original work, it is still a reproduction. If the artist were to repaint it completely, then what would be the point of transferring the image in the first place? No, a reproduction is a reproduction; let’s call a spade a spade.

Research / Reference Materials
      At what point does using research or reference material interfere with the originality of the work? If you consult a number of photographs in order to understand the structure of a building, or animal, for example, that is research. It is not copying as long as you then use your knowledge to produce an image that is different than the reference material. You could, for example, use several sources of information and combine part of each one in order to come up with your own composition. That work would still be original. But if you copy the background exactly from one source, and the animal exactly from another, then you have just managed to ’steal’ from two other artists (the photographers who took the pictures); there might also be an issue with the publisher of the material). The key with doing research is to use the material for ideas or information, not for copying.

In my next blog, I will continue the discussion on originality as it pertains to copyright issues. Next blog will be on November 1st, 2008.

Suzette

"Art is our language. Through it, we express the world as we see it and as we would like it to be. We come here from our own places - - different countries, backgrounds, races, experiences and personalities - - to tell our stories in a medium we all understand: line, form, colour, texture. This is the beauty of art - - that we are all different and we are all the same." (Catherine McLay – Painters Keys, Jun 17, 2008)

You hear the expression ’original art’ all the time, but what does ’original’ really mean?

Through the art club to which I belong, I’ve been involved in putting on many art shows, most of which were juried. The entry form for the show asks artists to certify that their work is original (from their own photos, sketches or imagination).

Sounds simple, doesn’t it, and yet, we constantly come across grey areas that don’t quite seem to fit the rule, or works where the subject matter makes it difficult to believe that the artist has painted it from personal experience. A good example of this is wildlife. When viewing a painting of a tiger, or an elephant, in its natural habitat, one has to wonder whether the painting was really done from personal experience, or copied from a book or other printed material.

So let’s look at some basic requirements for originality.

• It must be painted (or drawn, or whatever) by hand, by the artist (and not reproduced in any way).
• The reference for the painting must be from the artist’s own photograph, sketch, or painted from real life (or from imagination, in the case of an abstract). If reference material is used that is not one’s own, it must represent only a small part of the painting, in other words, the composition must be substantially different than the reference material and be the artist’s own.

To recap: the idea, the source or reference, and the execution, must all be the artist’s own and not derived from anyone else.

We are surrounded by art all the time. Art is in every picture, book, publication we see; it’s even on the packaging of most products we buy. We see and are inspired by other artists’ work, all the time. We get ideas for our own work by looking at what others are doing. Where do we draw the line between being inspired by, and copying, others’ work? For artists with integrity, the distinction is very important. To use an idea, or a technique, from another artist is done all the time; as long as our work looks different in the end, it is still original. And that is the key - to make sure that our work is substantially different in the end. It’s a matter of integrity, self-esteem and reputation.

In my next blog, I’ll discuss some of the grey areas and other issues pertinent to originality. Next blog will be on October 15, 2008.

Suzette

"If the painting process is to be successful, we need to be able to apply paint expressively, to compose originally, and to maximize color as well as design." (Stephen Quiller)