Play-Doh : A different take on photography

[RobC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34419940

I guess it's no different than digital or any other type of photography that constructs an image from "materials".

Discuss

 

[bsdunek]

I'm not sure where it fits, but I think it's cool. Wish I was a good enough sculpture to do that as a supplement to my photos.

 

[RobC]

I'm not sure where it fits, but I think it's cool. Wish I was a good enough sculpture to do that as a supplement to my photos.

I think its very cool too and she obviously has a great interest in photography. It makes you want to know more.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

in a world of increasingly bland repetition a refreshing look at the norm. I'm impressed.

 

[DannL.]

Being original can be difficult. I really like her work, but sadly I see "Plagiarism". And that makes me want to see "original works" even more.

 

[RobC]

Being original can be difficult. I really like her work, but sadly I see "Plagiarism". And that makes me want to see "original works" even more.

I don't think it can really be classed as plagiarism. It's openly honest about what it is which is to be commended. She is not passing off the compositions as her own.

 

[Rook]

Being original can be difficult. I really like her work, but sadly I see "Plagiarism". And that makes me want to see "original works" even more.

I wouldn't go as far as to call it plagiarism. She has a unique approach and style. Essentially, she is reinterpreting the original photographic works by utilizing a new, entirely different medium. It's certainly not anymore plagiarism than what Andy Warhol did by manipulating photo portrait and film still images by the screenprinting process.

 

[DannL.]

This is from www.plagiarism.org, as not to make it appear that it was my original idea . . . .

They said that according to certain sources . . . . Plagiarizing is defined as "to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." In my opinion, the works in question would not exist in their current form without her having "copied the composition and colors" from another artists existing work in her chosen medium. If "plagiarism" is not an appropriate term, then "copying" would suffice. In other words, her works are based on (derived from) someone else's work. Copyright violations are a different subject altogether, and that is not what we're talking about here.

Food for thought.

 

[RobC]

This is from www.plagiarism.org, as not to make it appear that it was my original idea . . . .

They said that according to certain sources . . . . Plagiarizing is defined as "to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." In my opinion, the works in question would not exist in their current form without her having "copied the composition and colors" from another artists existing work in her chosen medium. If "plagiarism" is not an appropriate term, then "copying" would suffice. In other words, her works are based on (derived from) someone else's work. Copyright violations are a different subject altogether, and that is not what we're talking about here.

Food for thought.

Sorry but you need to go back and re-read the definitions of plagiarism as defined in your link and really think about whether her work meets any of those 4 definitions. I don't think it meets any of them largely because she cites the original photographer and photograph.

Imagine for a moment a painter who paints a canal in venice with all the very recognisable architecture and churches. Under your interpretation that would be plagiarism becasue they were copying someones elses work in another medium. Just about all art would be considered plagiarism under your interpretation.

 

[DannL.]

Sorry but you need to go back and re-read the definitions of plagiarism as defined in your link and really think about whether her work meets any of those 4 definitions. I don't think it meets any of them largely because she cites the original photographer and photograph.

Imagine for a moment a painter who paints a canal in venice with all the very recognisable architecture and churches. Under your interpretation that would be plagiarism becasue they were copying someones elses work in another medium. Just about all art would be considered plagiarism under your interpretation.

As I had stated from the start of the post, the definition cited was not mine. The web site cited it as a Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition for "Plagiarizing". And yes, it was the fourth definition listed . . . but I really don't know how that would make much difference. Plagiarizing is not a mortal sin, it's just a term that covers a lot of territory. I still like her work, even though it was derived directly from the work of someone else.

 

[RobC]

I use the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/plagiarism

 

[removed account4]

if it is plagiarism or not, i like what she does. she credits the original photograph-taker
and never said she took the photographs, and its nice to see she doesn't - go blue- for shock and publicity.

 

[gzinsel]

Not to sound entirely stupid, duh!!! but isn't ALL artwork "derived directly from the artwork of some one else" ????????????? I mean, isn't every poet a thief!

 

[blansky]

It is by definition and her description, plagiarism. She said she copied famous photographs.

The real story is that it's interesting and charming.

Let the lawyers figure out the rest.

 

[gzinsel]

ya, but , , , , , don't you copy? I copy!!! I study a lot, or did study a lot of famous painting, photographs and prints, while I was in school. Information gleaned from those pieces of artwork I did use for my work. every trick, gimmick, compositional ploy, technique, etc. . . interpretation is still valid, as an interpretation of the original. But where is the original?

 

[Rook]

It is by definition and her description, plagiarism. She said she copied famous photographs.

The real story is that it's interesting and charming.

Let the lawyers figure out the rest.

But she's not actually "copying" the originals. She would need, at very least, a camera to do that. What she is doing is roughly approximating the general forms and composition she is basing her work upon, within the limitiations of her chosen medium: Play-Doh. That does not qualify as plagarism. The essence of a photographic image is more than a simple arrangement of forms and composition.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'm not sure where it fits, but I think it's cool. Wish I was a good enough sculpture to do that as a supplement to my photos.

I wish I had the frivolous time. Maybe I'll recreate famous photographs in chopped and sliced fruits and vegetables. The ephemeral quality itself will appeal to a certain segment of the art world. Oh what I could do with the strawberries I'm eating for breakfast right now!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Not to sound entirely stupid, duh!!! but isn't ALL artwork "derived directly from the artwork of some one else" ????????????? I mean, isn't every poet a thief!

Hey! I said this in an earlier post!

 

[blansky]

But she's not actually "copying" the originals. She would need, at very least, a camera to do that. What she is doing is roughly approximating the general forms and composition she is basing her work upon, within the limitiations of her chosen medium: Play-Doh. That does not qualify as plagarism. The essence of a photographic image is more than a simple arrangement of forms and composition.

She says in the piece, she reproduces other people's images. That is the intent and the whole point of what she's doing. There is no attempt to just make her own images, the intent is to copy famous ones.

But plagiarism has been defined many ways. Sometimes it revolves around intent, and whether or not the stealing was intentional. Sometimes it's about financial damages and sometimes it's about reputation.

Author Stephen Ambrose was heavily criticized for stealing sentences/descriptions/passages from other books in 6 of his publications without giving footnotes which hurt his reputation. Singer/songwriters can, like all of us, have songs or melodies bouncing around in our heads, but when they put them down on paper and play/publish them can be accused of plagiarism, whether deliberate or accidental.

In this play-doh case, the lady in question is deliberately using famous pictures to copy, because that is her whole marketing campaign. Her intent. Just making her own pictures may sell at craft fairs but not in the marketplace. She elevates her work simply by the fact that she copies iconic pictures.

Like I said, they are charming and whether you believe they are plagiarizing or not, she believes it. And like I said, I really don't care that much. Let the lawyers decide. Besides, the more publicity, the more money she makes.

 

[RobC]

well if we are saying anything which isn't original thinking can be classed as plagiarism then most people here, most artists, most architects, most designers and most everyone is a plagiarist. Muscians use sampling, art movements use a style, impressionism for example, etc etc etc.

Plagiarism is about far more than copying a style or composition, it is about deceit and that element is completely lacking in this womans work. And these works are not photographs. They are not copies, they are mimicking a composition deleiberately to highlight the original work, to promote the original photographer. How anyone can say this is plagiarism is beyond me. It is a homage to the original works.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Are we really going to go down this path again? There's been a load of threads on plagiarism and art and copying styles, locations, lighting, etc. Let's focus on the kitschy play-doh art.

 

[blansky]

A lot depends if you value intellectual property rights.

And a "homage" is often thought of as a cute item, up until that homage starts to make a lot of money. Then things change.

In the Warhol/Campbell soup case, you can bet there was a lot of discussion at the corporate level on how to handle the "homage". They decided on the wait and see approach, and decided that the publicity was advantageous to the brand, so they climbed on board.

There a lots of examples of companies suing or cease and desist orders, for people making homages to other people brand, logo or intellectual property.

And there a tons of court cases of how close something is to something else's intellectual property.

http://www.cnet.com/news/time-is-money-apple-pays-21m-for-clock-design-says-report/

So just because it doesn't bother you or you don't care about intellectual property, most people who make their living in "creating" things, it matters a great deal.

 

[RobC]

that example is a direct copy.

In September, the railway service, also known as SBB, objected to the clock-face design in iOS 6, saying it too closely resembled a trademarked design created in 1944 by SBB employee Hans Hilfiker and used in train stations throughout Switzerland.

do you seriously think the play-doh work closely resembles photographs in the same way as the two clock faces resemble each other?

 

[blansky]

that example is a direct copy.



do you seriously think the play-doh work closely resembles photographs in the same way as the two clock faces resemble each other?

Nope.

But not the point.

The point is that when you copy someones intellectual property that's a form of plagiarism and the lawyers get to decide it.

But it's still plagiarism. Even if they don't.

Just like if you steal a penny from me or $100. You can say one is ridiculous and the other isn't. But both are stealing. And the definition is still the same.

So plagiarism is still plagiarism whether someone sues or not.

I'm simply arguing the point of the definition, not whether it's worth money to whomever was plagiarized.

You're saying copying something is merely a harmless homage. I'm saying there are court cases and settlements everyday on homages.

 

[RobC]

Nope.

But not the point.

so why did you post the example