View Full Version : Imitation
Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Or is plagiarism the worst of all thefts?
M. Valdemar
11-19-2007, 06:24
The idea that one does anything original is a conceit.
It is time to close this thread - the TRUTH has been spoken. (I agree, BTW!)
To answer Stew's question: flattery.
"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.
Pherdinand
11-19-2007, 06:31
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.
But does originality imply new or different?
The idea that one does anything original is a conceit.
Then how did it start? :rolleyes:
M. Valdemar
11-19-2007, 07:03
If he wasn't dead you could ask Richard Feynman.
shadowfox
11-19-2007, 07:04
But does originality imply new or different?
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. :)
The idea that one does anything original is a conceit.
What then was the origin of art?
Roger Hicks
11-19-2007, 07:26
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.
It is time to close this thread - the TRUTH has been spoken. (I agree, BTW!)
To answer Stew's question: flattery.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it"
Andre Gide
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.
Hear hear!
Aesthetics is for artists what ornithology is for birds. (Barnett Newman)
ChadHahn
11-20-2007, 16:46
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.
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
11-21-2007, 01:34
Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Or is plagiarism the worst of all thefts?
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.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?
Colton was being sarcastic when he wrote that line.
Colton was being sarcastic when he wrote that line.
I would have said ironically, but yes, that’s how I understood it
I would have said ironically, but yes, that’s how I understood it
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.
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?
Not necessarily :) Genius implies something uniquely personal and may not be related to talent in the sense of simple mechanical ability. For example, in many ways, judging by the then accepted standards of excellence, William Blake was a rather bad poet and a mediocre artist, but today his technical shortcomings mean nothing; in being unswervingly true to his own vision he created works of extraordinary genius and value. Contemporaries made similar criticisms of Shakespeare and it would be easy to find numberless similar cases.
It's only conceited if one claims to be a genius and is not! :)
Cheers, Ian
Good to see you back Ian
regards
Hallo Stewart! Thank you! It's good to be back :)
Cheers, Ian :)
Aesthetics is for artists what ornithology is for birds. (Barnett Newman)
Wonderful!! I have to use that!!!!
Paul Jenkin
12-01-2007, 10:36
You could ask, "is imitation a limitation"? I'm not suggesting that any of us (and certainly not myself) could improve on what has been done by others - so why try?
I think a comment earlier in the thread said that imitation is self-educational. I agree. There are times, I've wondered 'how did he/she do that' and have experimented.
However, if it's such a trademark technique that you're trying to emulate - such as Man Ray's solarise portraits, everyone will say "that looks just like a Man Ray photo". Is that a compliment or a put-down?
There are a lot of new-school photographers of whose photos I ask "why did you bother doing that" and nothing would make me want to emulate their style or content. And yet these guys are feted as being original and ground-breaking. A tale of the "King's New Clothes" perhaps? Who knows?
I'm happy ploughing my own furrow. If I happen to accidentally bump across a defined and recognisable style - be it my own or akin to a recognised "master" then so be it. However, I think there's enough room out there for us not to tread on each-others' toes too often.
Is imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
Or is plagiarism the worst of all thefts?
why can't they both be true? Are there serisouly people who can't distinguish between an homage and plagiarism?
Whether imitation is flattery, plagiarism or anything else cant really exist as a standalone question with a definitive answer. It falls into the same category of questioning like "which camera or lens is best?". It really depends on why something is/was emulated and to achieve what.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.