"Good artists borrow great artists steal"

[Optimusdinkus]

In relation to design, it is so true. Never takes long for anyone to make a connection to what was stolen, which we all do really. The first person that made jelly buttons to incorporate into every website, that Man! by God he must OWN this thought..... WHO ARE WE KIDDING?! Downright plagiarism is laziness, and when it's done excellently, so obvious (software sure made it easy). My intentions of this thread are for it to be discussed about how you all feel towards something that has happened by our hands since the moment we picked up sticks, and that is copying the world around us and the ideas around us while making connections to make it "somewhat" original when in reality, it is not. Connections to ideas (be them analogous, complimentary, or tertiary) lead to originality, and the message conveyed is what our jobs lead into from these connections (maybe, can only be so certain). It's almost a comparison to the no-spec! work and promoting yourself qualm (probably not, has some duplicity but not completely). Thoughts? I'll say this much, can you really condemn a dead artists work that has existed and not burned for centuries if you saw another artist from an earlier time period have similar if not close relation to one another? Seems like the whole world doesn't give two shits, and we admire them in study, so what is the big deal?

[Two-Toe Tom]

I think there's a sliding scale in how you can think of originality. At one extreme you can say anything with words and images is a rip-off because that whole 'words and images' thing has been done to death already. But at the other extreme you can take a design, change the colour a bit, and say that it's original because that exact design hasn't been created before. Obviously both these perspectives are retarded, but I do think you need to narrow down your definition of originality or plagiarism in order to discuss it intelligibly.

[Two-Toe Tom]

I also want to add that in most cases, an effective design necessarily borrows from other designs. For example, if you're designing something for a law firm, what do you do? You look at other examples of things designed for law firms. Why? Because you're an unoriginal hack? No, it's because you want to convey to your audience that what they're looking at is indeed for a law firm. Designing whatever it is like a children's book or a circus pamphlet, while maybe original, would be retarded because it'd confuse the heck out of the target audience. You can't design effectively in a vacuum.

That being said, there are still obvious cases of plagiarism. And those people should get ****ed. But there's a lot of gray area as well.

[PrintDriver]

The idea is not to plagiarize but to build on. The reason we study what went before is so we don't have to re-invent the wheel. And it gets re-invented often as more than one person can come up with the same 'original' idea. You as a designer are constantly influenced by what you see. Your main focus is on the designed stuff around you. Open that focus out a bit more and you may see options you hadn't thought of before.

I don't know if this ever actually happened but can you just imagine the first guy to do the iPod silhouettes seeing a person on the street at twilight and the stark white of the headphones showing against a darkened silhouette? I can almost see that happening. If so, he wasn't looking at other designs but the world around him. (and ya, I don't know if that adwork was done before the release so don't bother, it was just to illustrate a point.)

As far as old masters 'plagiarizing' what came before them, a lot of those instances are 'studies', an homage to the original artist, or they put a new look relating to their own time period onto a work that came before. How many different ways has the Mona Lisa been depicted over the centuries???

There is an exceedingly fine line between plagiarism and parody.

And why is it any different to seek a Public Domain source to copy, or even pay royalties for a current item, and legitimately copy it, or use it in it's recognizable form? Does that make it any more or less creative than those that outright steal the images? Just a curious observation... (and note I said creative, not legitimate.)

[Optimusdinkus]

Those points are very well established. However the great masters, modern artists still look deathly close to one another as far as 'plagiarism' goes, even if they didn't do it on purpose (look at paintings painted by Vermeer and Rembrandt in their respective time era, someone was trying to build originality to Vermeer's use of light in exact use of the angle of light. A lot of them painted in each others galleries to copy what was there...). Picasso coined the quote and in most art books shows the comparisons of where he got the ideas from. In general they were civilizations long gone and revived in a way with his work. Personally, he took it too far into plagiarism. Also Printdriver, that makes it just as creative to do so. I mean is it any less creative to add beautiful line work to a piece that existed by tracing over it, or screen print it, like the Mona Lisa, or screen print Campbell's soup cans? Most would think not. This is really a response I had after seeing the following TED video that really makes a great point but a dangerous one. Probably should have posted it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/la...reativity.html

Some of us see all kinds of things in the real world and get connections from the ideas to another that has credence which is how I work most of the time as a graphic designer. From those connections come an idea that was constructed rather than copied, but years down the line some punk could call me out for not being 'original' and plagiarized when originality is a faux posed idealism, only comes from forgetting what existed before, that is my contention. Even using a font for christ sakes seems to be an unspoken confession as designers that it is ok. Call me out for splitting hairs on that one, but let's be real. Another video that made me think about it more recently was by a genus architect: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjarke_inge...ure_tales.html

Amazing ideas, all from previous forms that existed before, did it make him any 'less' of a creator? I don't think so. Really the point given in the beginning by me was to stir up conversation and play devil's advocate. If we really did steal ideas completely, wouldn't be able to stand on a leg when it comes to our job. Really Picasso's statement is crap when it comes to borrow vs steal.

Probably why it is on here: http://www.ridiculousdesignrules.com/

[PrintDriver]

Quite honestly, I always thought Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup type stuff was crap. Same goes for Lichtenstein (who is only now being called out as a plagiarist for some of his imagery as people are finding his source material in old comics). The only thing about those two is, they did it first. I laughed out loud in art history class when the professor showed us a slide of Klein's Blue Monochrome. The only reason that is called art is because it was an 'original' idea at the time.

Picasso using ideas from 'civilizations long dead' is no different than today's artist using Public Domain work upon which to build. Picasso did not copy the original work verbatim or pluck it off the wall and sign his name to it.

I think you confuse "copying" with "cutting and pasting." All of the artists you mention worked in their own hand, creating something from the ground up, though based on an earlier work. Designers do this all the time. There are only so many grids you can create in a trifold brochure. So you start with a grid that may have been used a hundred times before. But what you put into it is an original mixture of other elements. You build on what came before.

If you take another company's brochure though, keep all the copy in all the same places, use the same or slightly different color scheme, maybe swipe some images off the web and stick them in there (or as someone on here was asked to do once, use the competition's own imagery), then I have no use for you as a designer.

Since I can't view the Ted talks that you posted, I have no comment there.

[Optimusdinkus]

You're right with cutting and pasting vs copying, but it is close in proximity with the words stealing and borrowing no?

[NTLemon]

you mean like this?





Are any of these plagiarized or worth less because of their similarities?

or is it simply the reality of their context in history and that our current situation and society is vastly different?

[Optimusdinkus]

Originally Posted by NTLemon

you mean like this?





Are any of these plagiarized or worth less because of their similarities?

or is it simply the reality of their context in history and that our current situation and society is vastly different?

I don't believe so at all, but certain punks would.

[Grfk Dzgn]

I disagree with your casual blanket statement that those who have pushed art forward were simply copying one another. Nothing could be further from the truth. And there's a world difference between a Vermeer and a Rembrandt. Quality of line, etc.. Just as there is a world of difference between a Hiroshige and a Van Gogh.

Shepard Fairey is a plagiarist - Andy Warhol is not - and there is a world of difference between those guys too.

It saddens me to read that it has common place to rip/steal/punk someone else's work. It saddens me because of the great loss to us all that Individuality has been lessened. If you steal from me - it lessens you. It doesn't lessen me - it lessens you. That's what is at stake. Individuality. And by extension - freedom itself.

What a waste. What a waste indeed.

Art - great art - is a succession of revelations. Something like a Pollock doesn't just appear out of thin air. He had a means to his understanding of the canvas. And that is what great (painting) art is all about - the canvas - not the subject matter.
It seems that that is what is most regrettable with today's cut and paste generation. It's a quick and easy, slick and sleazy, punk cash dash without any contribution to - art, and without any contribution to ...Individuality.

Is it worth it? What is the worth of being an Individual - with all the rights and freedoms of for the Individual? In a word - Everything!! Brave men and women lay down their lives for freedom. Democracy ain't no joke. It's NOT cut and paste! It's real and tangible. And at the heart of democracy are the rights of the Individual.

What is mine - is NOT yours.