When Art Becomes a Business Model - A Response to Katherine Tyrrell

Katherine Tyrrell wrote a thoughtful post on her blog Making a Mark, and my initial response was “this is a bold move on a provocative topic.”  But is it always so simple?

Katherine's post raised questions about the comfort zone we have around our personal artistic space – a space another cannot violate without committing artistic plagiarism.  What is it that arouses the emotion? Why are we defensive when our space has been invaded but hardly notice when we invade someone else’s space?  And how much of this space is actually unique to us and not universal – including elements of craft and theories of brain science – the way we see and process visual information?

Art is not a linear function but a dimensional one, although many artists are focused on one direction at a time, such as color theory or brushwork, particularly as they learn their craft.  Each piece must be explored and fitted into place in the larger sphere of conceptual thinking before the unique artistic voice is fully expressed. I felt that to publicly criticize an artist because there are similarities – particularly in a business model so narrowly focused as the PAD movement – seemed unfair, throwing into question every plein air painting after the Barbizon painters that was not attributed, every asparagus painting after Manet, every sketch of trees after Constable...(Je suis desolee, Monsieur Manet, I did paint an asparagus painting four years ago and did not attribute it...)

The argument can be made that when art becomes a business model it moves into a different psychological/practical space designed to make money. As this idea relates to the PAD movement, the concept of offering some new insight/product/idea on a daily basis is not unique if you consider daily cartoons in the newspaper, daily verses on desk calendars. In fact, there’s little conceptual difference between the Painting A Day Movement and the idea to sell hamburgers through a drive through window in the 50’s: it was a novel way to move product through distribution channels newly opened - blogs and the internet now, the family car then.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with approaching art as a business. And as a disclaimer I am not actively participating in a Daily Painting movement and don't claim to be an expert, only an admirer. I did appreciate the point Katherine Tyrrell was making about artistic honesty, but I began to stumble with the plagerism argument once it was applied to something as narrowly defined as PAD. To selectively fault artists who are painting common daily items in a 6 x 6 or 5 x 7 space because of a similarity in subject (pre-defined) or style (currently extremely popular with the public) - doesn't this come too close to criticising all Impressionist movements since Monet for using high key color schemes, specific brush marks, and pastoral or domestic subjects?

Another case in point –  in this story by Mike Boehm in the Los Angeles Times  we are further confused over the line between origin and derivative. Conceptual Artist Takashi Murakami turned leftover fabric – used for handbags – into limited edition wall art: the new "art" was selling for $6000 to $10,000, when you could buy the same fabric in the form of a handbag for $1000. 

Part of this discussion stems from a natural dialogue between artists back and forth about the nature of art in today’s society.  When art – no matter what it’s original purpose - becomes a business model or a commodity - the argument between art and concept, plagiarism and derivative becomes murky as to what is original, what is re-framing or re-purposing, and what is artistically dishonest.

Did the images referenced in the Making a Mark post look uncomfortably similar - yes, when discussed in terms of subject, composition, and color.  But perhaps that similarity feels uncomfortable, not because of artistic plagiarism, but because it contributes to a growing unease - that we are losing the sense of an individual artistic self.  Our access to millions of other artists and their work through the internet is unprecedented in art history. Isolation is nearly lost. How many times have you worked in the solitude of your own studio producing what you thought was wholly original work, only to find something extremely similar created by an artist across the country? 

For me it has become unproductive to demand that every visual idea be unique in order to be valid: there are millions of artists in the world, and given those odds, it's impossible once we recognize we're not so much unique in our experiences but universal.  Duane Keiser's comments about the Making a Mark post carries this further, pointing out why he appreciates the discussion Katherine started -   “because the emphasis will become the deeper ideas and meaning behind the work rather than the surface features of technique and subject matter.”

Art does not exist in a vacuum, nor does any other intellectual activity. Perhaps a more interesting argument for the aspiring artist (and we are all aspiring to be better at what we do) is this: how can we take influences from a long lineage of artistic history and translate that into something of our own?

It's a discussion worth having and I hope you will give your opinions.

What are the deeper ideas in your work, and how are you working toward expressing them?

Comments

[maggie]

Sue,I've come a bit late (in the internet world) to this discussion. But I have to agree with you that with millions of people painting and posting their work (and I think that there must be more painters now than ever before in history), it's getting harder to come up with subject matter that hasn't yet been painted.

I must be lucky that, in being such an inexperienced painter, even when I do try to copy someone else's work (for educational purposes only!), my paintings almost always look like I painted them. Much to my chagrin.

[Carol McIntyre]

Confession: I have "taken" influences and ideas from many artists, but they always end up integrated within my own style. To me other visual input sparks mine and I like the bouncing back and forth.
Sorry to get off the PAD discussion. When a concept of mine was stolen a wise friend told me that I am the "factory" and no one can steal that from me.

[Wen Baragrey]

It certainly is, Sue. I'm definitely very interested in this subject. You've brought up really good points in your article.

I've been the victim of having my art used in places online without my permission. I know how horrible that is, which is why I felt so badly for this artist. I can't even imagine how this artist must feel. Which is entirely where my feelings on this subject come from.

The discussion itself is completely valid. The use of one artist to prove a point, IMHO, is not.

[sue smith]

Cathy and Nicki - thank you

Kathryn and Wen - this is no doubt an inflammatory subject open to many pitfalls along the way. I hope you will contribute to the ongoing discussion over the next few weeks as both the Making a Mark Blog and this blog attempt to clarify, to correct certain unintended conclusions, and offer artists of every genre the opportunity to share their views.

[Wen Baragrey]

What I feel has been overlooked in this discussion is the question of whether it was ... fair for Katherine to use this artist's art [as an example].

[the] article doesn't spend too much time on the legalities of the thing, but on the integrity of artists... Why single out one artist if the focus of the article truly was the discussion on plagiarism... the artist in question did not take a photo of Keiser's art and make a replica. She used, at worst, a similar subject and set up, and none of them were the SAME just similar, done in her own style.

Most important, she did it two years ago, before she made a name for herself. And there is no way she made her name or fortune based on those few early images.

Editor's note: this comment was moderated in an effort to lower the rhetoric rather than merely vent. Please bear in mind that a controversial conversation does not have to be a confrontational one. Thank you for your understanding.

[Kathryn Law]

I believe you've really missed the point here. A line was definitely crossed. I've seen examples just as blatant of people copying not only Duane's (or someone else's style) but ALSO the exact, unique subject matter. That is plagiarism. I've called out bloggers who have posted paintings in Duane's style with his very iconic subject matter--pushpins in a wall, a maple leaf stuck with masking tape on the wall, the shiny foil underside of a peeled-back jam container, on and on. And they have the gumption to make chatty comments about how they just spontaneously noticed this object one day, out of nowhere, and had to paint it. B.S. If you want to copy someone else's style while you learn, go for it! But at least have the decency and integrity to find YOUR OWN subject matter. Or if you don't, then give credit where it's due. There are countless objects in the world. Don't take someone else's extraordinarily unique vision and try to pass it off as your own.

@Bill--your work is some of the most unique anywhere. Your voice is recognizable in everything you paint.

[Nicki Ault]

Hi Sue,

I feel like I am really getting an education between Katherine's post and your response. I appreciate your words so much and felt very uncomfortable that many people did know who was being pointed out in the article, including myself. I, too, would have felt much more comfortable if she were not the only artist brought up in question.

Thank you for writing this thoughtful response.

[Cathy Johnson]

Fascinating post, thought provoking...thank you, Sue...

[sue smith]

Katherine - You did an excellent job addressing what is a confusing and volatile subject - your follow-up post is very important to fleshing out your argument and I encourage everyone to follow the link and read it.

Bea - I was just visiting with Katherine about your same point about art taking time and thought and effort. From my own experience here - because it is SO easy to post work immediately on line and share it with the world - in my earlier years I did not allow an idea to mature through a series of work without outside influence, but posted immediately, eager for positive feedback and encouragement. This left me open to revealing work that today is quite embarrassing, not fully developed and duplicative in another's artistic style, and I wish could be withdrawn. I am sure other artists experience this, too.

[Bea Lancton]

The internet, vital to the PAD movement is a wonderful tool, but for many artists starting out it can also be an unrealized hindrance, because of the sheer, unfiltered magnitude, and speed of it all. It engenders impatience.

Think of the time it takes to develop one's personal vision as an artist. Someone my age (50s), whose brain was "wired" in decades prior to the computer, has a different perception of time than someone who was born into the cyber-world. Artistic growth takes persistence and patience, and it seems to me the patience threshold has sunk to an all-time low. No problem - just look for ideas on the internet....

What is needed for an artist to find her own style is solitude - less, not more. I'm talking about the solitude of journeying inside one's own heart and mind, rather than that of the external studio, which is still connected to the outside world, either directly or indirectly to the internet.

Bill's right: "Everyone does derivative work until they don't." However, I think it will just keep getting harder not to do it as time goes on.

Thank you for yet another excellent post.