Copying Other's Art

    This is going to be a bit on the ranting side, but bear with me on this one. There are many individuals out there that see photography as something that is not artistic. At the same time they say paintings, drawings, and other more classical mediums can be classified as art. The thing is that if these “artists” are just copying the photographs they see online and other places it is just copying and borderline stomping all over the original artist’s work!

    Assumption: photography is art. Honestly, it just is and I have covered this part before. That having been said, I don’t want to take away from the other artists out there that take inspiration from my imagery or others. It is ok to create derivatives of another’s art with your own inspiration and vision to make it your own. Do acknowledge the original though as art! The medium does not make the art… Art. It is subject matter, composition, and lighting that goes into a final piece.

Blog images-69.jpg

    We are all influenced by the vision of those who came before us to some extent. What makes it your own is how you can interpret a scene differently into a final image. This is the artistic process. If you are just copying what others have produced before in composition, colors, style, etc… there is not much that is artistic going on. Where is YOUR vision? You may as well be a printer without much merit adding to the conversation (this goest for myself and other photographers too). It is harsh, but true I think.

    The goal then is to be original. You can’t always do this and starting out it helps to copy some things, but when creating works of art that you can truly call your own it has to come from you! This is part of the reason I like forest scenes and other spots that aren’t as likely to have been captured before. Sure, I have been influenced by the work of people like Simon Baxter and Marc Adamus, but when I create a new piece I know it has my own vision attached to it. It is my art!