Posts by David Cauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Really? Are you actually asking if attribution plays a role in the distinction between plagiarism and quotation?
Yes, I am. Take the case of Sherrie Levine's After Walker Evans for example. She rephotographed Walker Evans photos and presented them unaltered. There is a clear attribution in the title of the work, and yet the Estate of Walker Evans successfully prevented the work being sold because of copyright infringement (ie, passing someone else's work off as your own).
Take also the examples from film that Philip Matthews gave earlier, and that no-one has addressed. No clear attribution there, and yet they are generally considered quotations rather than plagiarism. Why?
Given, as you say, that a Sturtevant flower silkscreen is a different work than an otherwise identical Warhol one, I submit that in an alternate world where she didn't mention Warhol in the title it would still be a perfectly acceptable artwork. Plagiarism is a problematic concept, and attribution is not the magic wand it's being made out to be.
And what about the Botticelli figure? Quotation or plagiarism? Why?
To reiterate, my point is simply that the distinction between quotation, paraphrase, homage, etc, etc, and plagiarism is not as clear cut as is being asserted here. Nor, as Picabia said in the quote above, is the distinction between originality and copying.
Add the very real possibility, especially in writing, of unconsciously repeating something you've come across previously, and things are very murky indeed.
-
In 1921, Francis Picabia exhibited two paintings at the Salon d'Automne. One of these, The hot eyes, was published on the front page of the paper Le matin next to an article accusing Picabia of plagiarism.
He wrote in response:
__Le matin__ took great pride in showing on their front page my painting from the Salon d'Automne, The hot eyes, printing a diagram below it of an air-turbine brake published in a scientific journal from 1920. 'So Picabia invented nothing: he copies!' I'm afraid so, he copies an engineer's working drawing instead of copying apples! ... The painter makes a choice, then imitates his choice, whose deformation constitutes Art; why not simply sign this choice instead of monkeying about in front of it?
Picabia's portrait of Cezanne is relevant here.
-
Keir: What is it about 'the distinction between autographic and allographic art ... that is meaningful when talking about plagiarism'?
What does 'the intentional element ... mean for plagiarism'?
You're raising points, but not making an argument. I suspect you do have a good argument to make, and I'd like to hear it.
Likewise, what is the 'vital distinction between quotation, paraphrase, and plagiarism'?
I assume you mean passing off, but you don't actually say so. As for my painting examples, I thought the kneeling figure in Botticelli's c 1500 Adoration the clearest case. What makes it a quotation rather than plagiarism – that his contemporaries were meant to recognise it from another painting left unfinished 20 years before?
The same goes for Sturtevant. One of the interesting things about her work is that she started replicating other people's paintings before they were famous, at virtually the same time as the originals were made. If she hadn't included the original artists' name in the titles, would that have changed them from quotations into plagiarism? I'm not sure the distinction is as clear-cut as you make out.
But this too is beside the point. The question was, is it acceptable to do a wholesale copy of another's painting. The answer is yes.
Emma: I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The only snark was a little dig at Stephen for not letting me know he'd linked to me here, but the rest was straight up.
-
Dish. Take. It's a both or neither situation.
The only way this makes sense to me is if you'd read the opposite of what I wrote. I thought I'd quite clearly opted for both.
Yeah, man. If I wanna paint something that looks exactly like a Goldie, nobody's going to have a problem with that.
There are numerous examples, but I'll settle for Elaine Sturtevant, whose 40-odd-year career has consisted entirely of copying other people's works. As this article mentions, this has not been without controversy. However, a quick glance at a list of recent exhibitions and literature shows general critical acceptance of her work.
But this is beside the point, as is Craig's Book of Job comment. Or is Ihimaera being accused of lifting his entire book from someone else now?
-
First off, I'd like to point out that, had I wanted to join this discussion, I'd've posted here rather than on my blog. Unfortunately, some arsehole decided that for me by linking to my post. Rather than comment on the post using the comment function on the blog, as I believe is the done thing usually, you've seen fit to comment here.
Before I, probably foolishly, commented here myself, I was called dull (twice), ignorant, a 'yay-me-er', and a witterer. And that was just from one person. Not that I mind, I myself am perfectly capable of abusing people I don't know based on scant evidence, usually when drunk.
I suppose it's gratifying that my late-night musings have generated such a large response, but it'd've been nice if someone at least addressed my points. Take the first response for example. Okay, if I've displayed my 'dull ignorance of the specific nature of the medium of writing', what is it about that nature that makes plagiarism anathema in a way that it isn't in painting? Likewise, I'm perfectly willing to accept that my notion of plagiarism is 'naive and conceptually impoverished' if that were demonstrated rather than simply asserted. Make a case, use examples, argue your point. (Except for Joe – you keep trotting out the cliches and divining my unconscious motives. It's funny. And I get it: You're the village idiot.)
I may have missed something, but the only really substantive point made was Webweaver's response, which was to my comment rather than the original post. Yes, the theory does hold that meaning is constructed by the viewer. As Craig notes, viewing an art work is an active process. However, that isn't what I was talking about. I obviously wasn't clear. My point was that the debate on what is acceptable in the production of an art work should be had by the producers of art works.
Sacha's comment seems to me relevant here. Artists do not live in a vacuum. Things you've seen and read sit in your head and knock around with other things you've seen and read. Do writers really want to keep on second-guessing themselves, constantly worried that they may have read what they've just written somewhere long ago? That is something for writers to decide, not readers.
As a reader you can accept or reject the result of the process, but I don't think you've any business trying to dictate what that process should be.
Oh, and Webweaver asked about the plagiarised artist's feelings. This is one reason I only steal from the dead. That said, I was a little annoyed about the upside down thing, but not too much. After all, I'd got the idea in turn from Joaquin Torres-Garcia, a modernist artist from Uruguay who started a movement called the School of the South. He wrote:
There should be North for us, except in opposition to our South. That is why we now turn the map upside down, and now we know what our true position is, and it is not the way the rest of the world would like to have it.
Okay, this is really long and boring, and probably not worth the effort. Carry on.
-
Lucy: Guy Debord did some good things with unattributed footage in his film __Society of the spectacle__. In the same vein, there's the ongoing work of Craig Baldwin. Admittedly, these examples are not your usual Hollywood fodder, for example that dreadful Peter Jackson, but there's more to film than that shit.
And I think the definition of 'creative output' you imply (as in the simplistic formulation yours) is unnecessarily limited. Creativity is much more muddied than you seem to make out. Influence is an interesting subject, and by no means simple.
Keir: You're not a fan? Good.
To be honest, and this might sound wanky, but the only people's opinions who matter on this subject are those who produce creative work of their own and put it out there. Not the critics.
-
I just can't see who they're trying to attract. Are people currently purchasing their Louis Vuitton luggage at Three Kings or their Ralph Hotere's at Glenfield Mall?
They're not paintings by Hotere. They're paintings of Hotere.
Considering how many good artists and galleries there are in Auckland, that whoever made this ad chose to use boring paintings of a boring painter says something about who they want to attract.
-
Oops, that's a translated edition of Boccaccio, not Montaigne.
-
My Oxford World's Classics edition (1993) was translated by Guido Waldman. I enjoyed it very much, but haven't read any other translations to compare.
-
Wow, your cats sharpen their claws on wind?