HANITA: "under what circumstances does a copy become an original?"
DAVID: my thoughts have gotten too long winded for this forum, so I have uploaded the file "baker.doc"./uploads/1/2/4/0/12405107/baker.doc
SUSAN: I found the Baker reading dense and pretentious. So I will just say this print is a signature work by Robin Rhode because it follows his conceptual art making practice of altering or adding to found objects or images. The original "document" was a record that then had markings added giving it a framework to become an image of a "performance piece". It is another statement… a new statement and the development of it has shifted its original meaning to one attributed by Rhode. Size, scale and compilation or drawing with photography gives it a fresh identity. In simplistic terms… this is what Andy Warhol did with the Campbell's Soup Can many years ago.
SUSAN: I found the Baker reading dense and pretentious. So I will just say this print is a signature work by Robin Rhode because it follows his conceptual art making practice of altering or adding to found objects or images. The original "document" was a record that then had markings added giving it a framework to become an image of a "performance piece". It is another statement… a new statement and the development of it has shifted its original meaning to one attributed by Rhode. Size, scale and compilation or drawing with photography gives it a fresh identity. In simplistic terms… this is what Andy Warhol did with the Campbell's Soup Can many years ago.
BRITLAND: Following Susan's thoughts about Robin Rhode's work, I would say that a copy becomes an original when the artist attaches to it a new idea that changes the context and/or reception of the 'copy.' It's what Duchamp did, it's what Warhol did, it's what Sherrie Levine and Barbara Kruger and many, many other contemporary artists have done. As image makers and photographers, we are constantly creating representations of 'originals' that exist in front of our cameras or in the recesses of our imaginations, and I think it is important to constantly remind ourselves that what we are left with - the photograph/video/montage/projection/whatever - is in fact a copy, a representation. Actually, the more I think about this, maybe there is no 'original.' Maybe a representation can be both an original and a copy. Or maybe the terms 'original' and 'copy' aren't polar opposites in meaning. Maybe this is a trick question!
As for the Baker reading... I'm still struggling with that map that places all (expanded) forms of 'photography' within the confines of stasis/non-stasis and narrative/non-narrative. Are these really the only categories that can contain and define photography and its new, ever-expanding definition? He references the 'cinematic' quite a lot as an example of how photography is moving into increasingly narrative work, and I think that that categorization can be confining, as photography is extending into sculpture, installation, drawing and painting, and not just video/film-making. Overall though, I think he opens up an interesting and important conversation about the medium of photography, where it came from and the many directions it might be going.
As for the Baker reading... I'm still struggling with that map that places all (expanded) forms of 'photography' within the confines of stasis/non-stasis and narrative/non-narrative. Are these really the only categories that can contain and define photography and its new, ever-expanding definition? He references the 'cinematic' quite a lot as an example of how photography is moving into increasingly narrative work, and I think that that categorization can be confining, as photography is extending into sculpture, installation, drawing and painting, and not just video/film-making. Overall though, I think he opens up an interesting and important conversation about the medium of photography, where it came from and the many directions it might be going.
VINCE: first thing that comes to my mind is Shepherd Ferry (sp?). His "Obey" image was a copy of a photograph of "Andre the Giant". He had the genius (imo) of making this image so ubiquitous that it achieved an iconic status that was "original". No...?
Still trying to figure out the source of the "panic". Re-reading Baker now. Watched Jeff Wall talking about how he "begins by not photographing". He sees something, doesn't photograph it, then goes back and "fakes" a similar scene later. Then prints it big (what's the fascination with scale, btw?). Seems like a giant waste of time and energy to me! Also, I'm very much intrigued by these "fake" photographs. Holly (?)'s show up at the PCNW is a current example. What't the point of taking a photograph of something that you "faked"? Is is supposed to be a movie still that doesn't have the movie? Is this why everyone seems to want a "narrative" along with the images? Confused in a good way.
SARAH: My favorite part of the reading was the idea of photography being full of opposites. It has had so many uses from 'art' to scientific documentation and many other things. It reminds me of a dicussion I had in another class about what makes a photograph art? Does the photographer have to take the picture with the idea in mind of the photograph being art or can they take the photograph and then later decide that it is art? Does someone have to acknowledge it as art for it to be art? In our discussion we talked about photographs that were taken for purposes such as documenting land so other people far away could see what was there and if they should develop the area. There were beautiful images as a result but were the images art if they were not originally taken for art purposes?
The photograph is much different than other art forms because of its diversity. People do not really question if a painting was meant to be art because it is purposeful and everything in it was placed there by the hand of the artist; they chose if they wanted to put something in the image or not. With photography the viewer does not necessarily know what was placed in the image and what was already there, the viewer does not necessarily know the artists intentions. There could be something in a photgraph that was there by accident unlike in a painting.
The photograph is much different than other art forms because of its diversity. People do not really question if a painting was meant to be art because it is purposeful and everything in it was placed there by the hand of the artist; they chose if they wanted to put something in the image or not. With photography the viewer does not necessarily know what was placed in the image and what was already there, the viewer does not necessarily know the artists intentions. There could be something in a photgraph that was there by accident unlike in a painting.
AMANDA: one of the things I love about photography is its evolution throughout history. We've had the camera obscura, the long exposure portraits of people with creepy blurry eyes, instant photography ie Kodak and Polaroid (skipping around here) and now digital photography forms ie phones and social media networking like Instagram, that make it possible for ANYONE to be a photographer. But then, with the high accessibility of photography (especially now) it brings up the question in the Original Copy: what can we define as art? Is a digital image of a fancy sandwich with a vintage filter on it art, or is it simply another type of "status update"? Today's image-driven (and technology driven) culture makes it very easy for someone to take and share images, and it reminds me of Duchamp, challenging what a sculpture, and art, is when it is placed in a specific context (or not). Social media and technology and phones and the internet are here for whatever you want them to be for, and it's up to the artist to decide to use, or not to use, these mediums as a way of getting art and ideas across in a way that best serves the purpose of their practice.
HANITA: How important it is for you that your work to be perceived as original?
AMANDA: Every artist wants their work to be perceived as original, but the definition of original is different for everyone. For me, I need to come up with the idea myself, photograph in the way that I am most comfortable (for now, that's with black and white 35mm or Polaroid) develop my film and make my prints (or projections) how I want them to be presented, and, of course, be happy with and proud of the work that I am showing. The pictures that I take help me understand my relationships with these people and how I value them. Because I have such a personal connection to what these images mean to me and the people around me, I don't want some generic schtick placed on them (whether that be by myself or someone else). My work being perceived as original has very close ties with
FERNANDA: 1. I think that a copy becomes an original when it incorporates certain new or distinctive elements. For example, if it gives a new perspective, addresses the issue implied in a different way, changes the essence of the work or somehow switches the way the public can look at it or think about it.
2. It is important to me, but not essential, that my work is perceived as original. I like to constantly raise my own bar, and to frequently think on ways I can express my ideas in a different way. This doesn't mean my work has to be seen as 100% original, and it could even be closer to a "copy" sometimes considering the influence I have from different artists that I like and admire. Even though, it is my purpose to somehow seal my own perspective in my work .
2. It is important to me, but not essential, that my work is perceived as original. I like to constantly raise my own bar, and to frequently think on ways I can express my ideas in a different way. This doesn't mean my work has to be seen as 100% original, and it could even be closer to a "copy" sometimes considering the influence I have from different artists that I like and admire. Even though, it is my purpose to somehow seal my own perspective in my work .
VINCENT: I feel like I'm photographing in a completely unoriginal way… trying to Copy the work of the very non-contemporary Greats like Cartier-Bresson, Doisneau, Atget, Winogrand. And I think that makes me a "poseur"!
But I'm not interested that people see my photographs as something innovative or "original". I'm only interested in capturing and re-presenting what I thought I saw when I looked and noticed, and what I think goes unnoticed (like Sarah : )
But I'm not interested that people see my photographs as something innovative or "original". I'm only interested in capturing and re-presenting what I thought I saw when I looked and noticed, and what I think goes unnoticed (like Sarah : )
SARAH: I think for me it is important that my work be thought of as original. I understand that often times people are inspired by things such as other people's work but that does not mean your own work cannot be original while still being influenced by others. Someone once said to me that there is no such thing as an original idea anymore and that really bothered me. People are all so different and they see things in so many different ways and even though you may have a similarity to someone else that does not mean that you are a copy of them. When you think about it even a copy is original in a way because the two things are not the same thing they just look the same. I know I am getting a little philosophical here but it's what I think.
If someone were to tell a group of people to take out a piece of paper, now fold it in half and draw a circle on it, now draw a square on it, now draw a triangle and a rectangle touching on it. Everyone had the same instuctions but everyones picture would turn out completely different. Did they fold it in half horizonatlly or vertically, what writing utensil did they use (pen, pencil, etc.), did they draw everything in a row/ on top of one another/ randomly/ etc? See what I mean? I hope I didn't get to far away from the actual question there.
If someone were to tell a group of people to take out a piece of paper, now fold it in half and draw a circle on it, now draw a square on it, now draw a triangle and a rectangle touching on it. Everyone had the same instuctions but everyones picture would turn out completely different. Did they fold it in half horizonatlly or vertically, what writing utensil did they use (pen, pencil, etc.), did they draw everything in a row/ on top of one another/ randomly/ etc? See what I mean? I hope I didn't get to far away from the actual question there.
SUSAN: So I had the same problem with Weebly that Vincent had and could not get back in once I posted the first comment. So, this is my response to the second question posed by Hanita.
I put aside the idea that my work or much of what I see these days is "original". So I work to at least create a fresh point of view. I constantly check my intention to evaluate if it has been met before I show work publicly.
My photography also is influenced by my background in printmaking. Thus I always have a group of montages or sequences started that are more narrative-based and metaphoric. This work is presented as an alternative process to the single photograph.
Would I like people to want to collect my work? Sure. Would I like to have serious interest in my work from the "art world"? You bet. Would I like my work to be respected by my peers? Absolutely. Do I expect these things to happen. Not so much. But making images is how I communicate what really interests me so I keep doing it.
I put aside the idea that my work or much of what I see these days is "original". So I work to at least create a fresh point of view. I constantly check my intention to evaluate if it has been met before I show work publicly.
My photography also is influenced by my background in printmaking. Thus I always have a group of montages or sequences started that are more narrative-based and metaphoric. This work is presented as an alternative process to the single photograph.
Would I like people to want to collect my work? Sure. Would I like to have serious interest in my work from the "art world"? You bet. Would I like my work to be respected by my peers? Absolutely. Do I expect these things to happen. Not so much. But making images is how I communicate what really interests me so I keep doing it.
BRITLAND: I think that in this postmodern ‘art’ era that we are living and working in, there are three components to what might make someone’s work original: the idea, the process, and the final product. I personally am not too concerned with any one of these things being completely ‘original’ in my work, however I do strive to combine my very unoriginal thoughts, processes, and final results in a way that maybe carves out the tiniest bit of uniqueness in my work as a whole. I think that cultivating a sense of individuality as we go through life is a very human tendency, so it seems natural that that desire would leak into our image/art making processes.
Another thing I’ve thought about is the potential for imitation and appropriation. To me, just knowing that something I create can be re-imagined, re-invented, re-photographed, re-appropriated, etc, etc – by me or someone else entirely - abolishes any sort of ‘originality’ that my work may or may not have in my mind. As photographers especially, I think that the quest for originality is something we just sort of have to leave at the door.
And another thought – doesn’t the very idea of ‘originality’ seem sort of outdated in this day and age? It sort of reminds me of the ‘personal genius’ philosophy from a couple centuries ago – like we’re all thinking and responding and creating in a vacuum. Maybe we should be thinking of different terms to evaluate the creative process, concepts, and work that go into someone’s art practice.
Another thing I’ve thought about is the potential for imitation and appropriation. To me, just knowing that something I create can be re-imagined, re-invented, re-photographed, re-appropriated, etc, etc – by me or someone else entirely - abolishes any sort of ‘originality’ that my work may or may not have in my mind. As photographers especially, I think that the quest for originality is something we just sort of have to leave at the door.
And another thought – doesn’t the very idea of ‘originality’ seem sort of outdated in this day and age? It sort of reminds me of the ‘personal genius’ philosophy from a couple centuries ago – like we’re all thinking and responding and creating in a vacuum. Maybe we should be thinking of different terms to evaluate the creative process, concepts, and work that go into someone’s art practice.
I added MY original, oh so Artistic and most contemporary Photograph. Because I could. But now I will behave.