Derivative Art,so Much Controversy,what Is It Really?
It's been a very long weekend and I've had plenty of time on my hands to Create. What I created is what might be coined derivative art, I'm not sure though.
I had to to look up the meaning of the word and to my surprise this is how it's defined.
(typically of an artist or work of art) imitative of the work of another person, and usually disapproved of for that reason.
"an artist who is not in the slightest bit derivative"
synonyms: imitative, unoriginal, uninventive, noninnovative, unimaginative, uninspired; More
1. something that is based on another source.
"a derivative of the system was chosen for the Marine Corps’ V-22 tilt rotor aircraft"
As a noun I guess I can agree with the definition, as an adjective I would have to say I totally disagree.
The following video is of some 20 derivative works which I created from my metal sculptures and my acrylic paintings these past few days. I choose to use my own works but I also created a few not shown here which I created from images in the public domain. They both required about the same time to produce and the same amount of creativity.
So I guess what I'm getting at is that the first definition is so far off especially in the use of synonyms examples used:imitative, unoriginal, uninventive, noninnovative, unimaginative, uninspired; More
What's your take on it? Watch the short 2 minute video if you can before posting your opinion.
I agree with the adjective. The missing adj is....inspired....a more positive response,though, still suggesting.....COPY,
as in, copyright.....known as the foil to copiers/copyists. Semantics Rule.
The issue is...complex. If I paint a fountain, rather than take a photo, am I infringing on the sculptor's copyright! because
my painting is new art,my impression,inspired by the fountain. Am I copying?
Can of worms.
Sorry,won't watch the vid. Am addressing the bigger picture/issue, lol
Viva, I agree that it's a complex issue. I often try and simplify things in my own mind as I find housing to much clutter just gets in the way of my own creative processes.
Derivative is just a word, I think that one must look at the body of work of an artist to really get a better understanding of the intention before such a plethora of negative descriptive words as are in the definition of the words used to describe how or from where an artist gets his or her inspiration.
My video is nothing more than the 20 or so digital works I created these past few days, now there is another word "digital" that I think contributes to this complex subject.
In my case not so much as the only person I'm "copying" is myself. All of the works or derivatives I made have in part as a source the painstaking work that went into my previous metal sculptures and all the paintings I created and the photographs of them that followed.
These photographs are now part of the source and inspiration for the "digital work" I have now embarked on. In my mind I view it as a continuum of realms as the title of my video suggests.
I don't know where the line is drawn when it comes to where I can and cannot get my inspiration from and who can proclaim it as legal or not as defined by man's complex laws,considering that I view man's laws as nothing more than (well that's another story, but the inspiration comes from a source and that source is to vast and infinite for me to fully comprehend and at most I can say that I recognize that it is infinite.
A continuum of realms that seems to intersect across all manner of space and time and mediums and works,both individually or collectively of others that even goes beyond natural laws and that man's laws will never be able to adequately address.
David, that's right. The lines are best left to be decided by the individual and let their conscious or unconscious be their guide. :-)
ps.,I have been enjoying working with my dynamic painting software. The problem now left unsolved is what to do with all the art I can create,personally I really like it but haven't the slightest idea about it's marketability. Maybe it's time to quit my apparel shopify and ebay stores and revamp them it into an art gallery.
I usually think "transformative", rather than "derivative".
My last few pieces fall into this category. I think "derivative" can have negative connotations, like you use somebody's image without the proper rights. "Transformative" can use somebody's work without proper rights, but it can be so unique, as to make the word "derivative" an inappropriate description, because the transformation is so cool that it exceeds what the original artist ever had in mind -- a second artist takes the first artist's work to a new level of appeal. The controversy there is how can this be a bad thing?
Robert, I made the mistake of trying to understand the laws on this and I am now more confused about it than when I started out with less knowledge on it, so I must defer back to wisdom rather than knowledge and understanding. :-)
I'm afraid that sometimes it comes down to a judge's decision, which means risking a lawsuit that would lead to a trial where this would have to be the natural means of resolving any conflict.
If you live on the transformative-art edge, then you're better off being wealthy enough to be willing to pay for trial proceedings as a cost of doing business. The safest route is to use public domain images, assuming that you can find any that are decent enough to serve as the base for your transformations.
On the other hand, if you totally destroy the integrity of an original photo, the way I do in creating some of my digital abstracts, the original image cannot even be located in the transformation, thus, there is no proof of what exactly the base of the abstract was.
David yes, my sentiments exactly,derivative schmarivative ..Lol! With regards to the video showing those with new works but if you remember not so long ago I did several other works which were not based on my own, here I will post them for ease of explanation for the point or question I am wondering about regarding derivatives, even though this is not an image thread.
The first image is a simply a public domain photograph which I colorized.
The next image is another public domain photograph which I colorized but then I used the same dynamic painting software I used on the images in the new video to turn them into digital paintings
.Finally the third image is an acrylic real hand painting done on a canvas board where I used a online photograph which I did not download or anything but just as a
guide to teach myself how to paint a portrait by looking at it.
The question is, what do we call each of these art works? Do any of these art works require less inspiration,imagination,inventiveness, innovation,originality than any other? If one buys into the derivative work theory it would appear so based on the definition.
#1. Colorization only.
#2.Colorization of PD photo and turned into a digital painting using dynamic software.
#3.A traditional hand painting done with acrylic paint on canvas board.
The question is, what do we call each of these art works?
Do any of these art works require less inspiration,imagination,inventiveness, innovation,originality than any other? If one buys into the derivative work theory it would appear so based on the definition.
It's a very complex issue, and subjective depending on what side of the fence you sit on, but as a traditional artist, digital artist and photographer I have simplified it in my own mind over the years.
Put in simplest terms, if the original artwork is recognisable within the piece, then its copying. I come from a background of traditional art where my aim was photo realism. Yes it created a new piece that required many, many hours of work and skilled application, but the end result would not have existed as it has been created without the original reference photo and was still therefore a copy.
Now most traditional & digital artists would disagree - but the lines get very blurred when you are a traditional artist, digital artist *and* a photographer.
Digitally manipulating with colours, filters or otherwise painting a photo that is still recognisable as the original photo or painting. A copy.
If the 'original work' can be removed from the 'new work' and the new work stands alone as a complete piece of art...then not a copy.
Anything that is manipulated photographic pixels (of a photo or painting) should be called photo manipulation. Most get away with the all encompassing label of Digital Art. A digital piece created from scratch by hand - Digital Painting.
Transformative to me would be something entirely different, where the original image can't be recognised.
For what its worth, in higher level art competitions, an artwork created from a reference photo that was taken by someone else other than the artist is considered a copy and will be eliminated - even retrospectively.
With photography competitions at the same level, any inclusion of photography, textures or other elements not created by the photographer or any element or image that has been copied or plagiarised will be eliminated for its lake of innovation, imagination, inspiration, inventiveness and originality.
Inspiration for art comes from everywhere. Heck, even paintings of soup cans is considered art by some. Just stay within copyright laws, be honest about what you are doing and your methods and give credit to the original artist or photographer.
Robert, there is so much truth to that concept and why I named the video "Continuum Of The Realms", interesting to me is how the "Realm" is able to realign it's self and reveal it's new nature especially in the drip paintings after transformation,I have seen it in some of the other works as well. Even more interesting is that it can go totally unnoticed to many who do not seek out the Realm.
I just might rename all my art "Continuum Of The Realms", I just wonder if I can convince the "judges", I'm sure some among them have the eye to see. :-)
Human proximity to the pains, labors, efforts, or struggles of creating something is what chisels in a sense of possessing it. And the reason that this makes a difference is human mortality -- we only have a certain amount of time to be alive, and our struggles define this aliveness, thus giving them a particular importance. The artifacts resulting from these mortal struggles are literal representations of our life's energy and purpose during its very limited appearance in the universe.
Otherwise, nobody owns or has a right to claim anything. The universe has no concept of "ownership" or "authorship". This is a human thing.
ART competitions are in a realm of their own, for instance, All semantics aside, do what you want, call it what you want,
Except when entering a Comp....those are their Rules...obey, or be damned.
Otherwise, be TRUTHFUL, explicit, or say 'enhanced', and publish....simple.
I don't define,when unsure (most of the time), and just describe the work
"Created to my aesthetic "....no labels.
The talk is fraught. K.I.S.S.
When it comes to art, I believe words fall short and fail to convey what it really is, I am more in line with what Robert conveyed. Since I don't do contest or do art with the main purpose of selling it matters not so much in the end.
Complex and subjective best describes it all for me, as is art.I don't fully understand elements of my art as it comes from a realm I don't fully know. My reference to judges was of the legal type,responding to something Robert said. :-)
Art says absolutely nothing, in and of itself. If any meaning is there, then humans put it there, and words are a means of clarifying what this meaning might be.
Words are an attempted extension of the visual. If handled conscientiously, words can be an enhancing extension, rather than a detraction.
Now there may be times for an artist to be quiet and a times to speak, but the quiet times do not equate to the uselessness of words used in conjunction with art. A discussion forum is an invitation to extend the artistic experience with words, and so I make no apologies for invoking these devices here.
The visual is always supreme to the verbal, as far a visceral reactions go.
The verbal following the visceral is like a poem -- a further abstraction of an already-abstract encounter. It's another level of consciousness singing.
For all practical purposes I will be calling my new work digital art,this so I can focus on the new work and everything else that has developed since I started this thread and believe me when I say," it's a lot".
It's only art after all. :-)
I will now close this thread, thank you all for your thoughts!