iTAP 28/09/10

'Bad artists copy. Good artists steal' - Picasso

Notions of Originality

Is there any such thing as originality? Almost any artwork can be drawn back its influences and inspirations. But where does one draw the line between plagiarism and paying homage to a piece of work?

Take Jean Auguste Dominque Ingres's 1832 painting of Louis Bertin;

And compare it to Etienne Carjat's portrait of Victor Hugo over fourty years later.

The similarities in style are apparent, from the masculine pose, the lighting and even down to the texture of the background. Etienne Carjats work is photography, whereas the original is a painting, but does the change in medium make this work original? Or is it simply a rip-off of previous work?

Can Recontextualized Ideas be Contemporary?


Old ideas can often be reused and updated to fit modern culture. Take for example, John Constable's The Haywain.

Considered as one of the most famous British paintings of all time, The Haywain depicts an idyllic, romanticized image of British countryside.
Over a decade later the image is recontextualised by Peter Kennard in 'Say No the Cruise Missiles' (1982);

One small edit changes the entire meaning of the painting; turning it from a peaceful image or rural England, into a political piece with a strong anti war message at its core. It's easy to see the irony in the juxtaposition of the cruise missiles; a device of war, against the peaceful scenery.
However, does this require the audiences knowledge of the original work in order to be effective? Or does this work as a stand-alone political piece?