this is a question that i've been having problems with lately. as a child, when it became known that i "could draw," or that somebody else could draw, other people would usually say something to the effect of "yeah, but do you have to look at a thing to draw it, or can you just draw it from your imagination", presupposing that drawing (and subsequently, all art-making) from one's imagination had more merit than being able to draw from life. this implies that taking imagery from anywhere but one's imagination is somehow inferior...wherein lies a dichotomy: the images from one's imagination reference things we've gathered from life.

although i no longer believe in this proletariat version of art theory, it has shaped the way i've created art from the onset, and confused me as to how much exactly you can take from other pieces, artefacts, ideas, etc., without it becoming copying.

thoughts?

"...Brings to my mind the value of drawing from memory as opposed to using a reference. For people like me, who are always hungry for authentic details, it is often difficult to trust memory. Yet trust I must, because a reference, after my choice, posture and time is not readily available. Sometimes, its practically impossible - consider the crucified figure in "Nun"(incidentally, one of my works).In such circumstances, I must allow the brain to create a composite of the various reference studies or simple observations(of people and things) made over a lifetime. That is drawing from memory.

I will not make a value judgement on which is more difficult, or creditable, and which is less. Let me simply state that real-life studies are often practically impossible, and memory studies, even if they allow a much greater degree of compositional freedom, often lack authenticity as regards detail.

In the end, it all depends on where your priorities lie, and what kind of work you are aiming to do."

I hope this somewhat contributes to the relevance of the topic. Thanks

I have tried to find a way out of the egotistic inertia associated with copying. Such vanity usually has at its root an insecurity regarding ones own originality, and powers of creation. Once that part is settled copying becomes easier.

But at the very begining I must understand the need to copy. It is not enough to state that there are numerous examples of copies of great masters by equally reputed painters. That is not enough justification, since copying on the strength of that arguement is itself an act of mimicry.

It is equally shallow to state that one is copying Leonardo so as to make a better Monalisa, or with the aim that something better, and different will evolve out of that enterprise. It is like pretending to make a better clone out of the original. An act of outright forgery is far more sincere. At least the forger copies the original painter's signature without a sense of hypocrisy. So one must set that kind of intention aside at the very begining.

So why must one copy past masters? To learn? Certainly a valid arguement. We learn from every experience, bitter or better. But I have another reason for wanting to copy. I have learned, by happy experience, often accidental in nature, that a beautiful work of art only partially reveals its beauty to the superficial observer. It is one thing to watch a couple dance a tango, quite another thing to step on to the dancefloor yourself. It is one thing to watch a close-up of naked flesh on 70 mm film, quite another to actually "smell" the warmth of human skin. Gauguin held a casual interest for me till I tried to reproduce his paintings in "pencil". He is famous for his colors, yet underneath all that riot lies a serene solidity of drawing which mesmerized me. When I see a Schiele, I understand that its predominantly about structure, brute swagger, in-your-face honesty. Yet when I drew him, the child inside Egon - soft, shaken, vulnerable, hence rebellious, and angular with defensive barbs, revealed itself to me. No amount of superficial viewing, or theorizing, other than active participation in the process of re-creation could have made this possible. This is my "excuse"(even though I really do not need to make one!) for wanting to copy.

As regards overcoming the egotistical inertia associated with copying - let us face it, it indeed IS difficult. The fear, that our sense of originality could be clouded is often genuine, even though the reasons aren't. The only thing original about us is the way our genes are recombined - once during gametogenesis, and again during conception. The raw materials of our creative endeavours are the same, whether we paint like a Rembrandt or a Rothko. Just the recipe is unique. And as long as we hold on to our own recipies, and pretend not to "create" out of others', we are in the clear.

Some of my tested solutions - 1) Clearly right down the name of the original painter, and the title in one corner of every copy or study or whatever, so that someone less knowledgeable, upon viewing "your" Renoir nude, never has an opportunity to exclaim - "Wow, what a woman! Please introduce me to your model."
2)And this is really uselful, and by happy chance different things, if not better, often emerge out of this, something akin to what your friend said. Try to render the work in a medium quite different from the one in which it was originally created. Like "draw" an exquisitely oil-painted Ingres drapery with a thick charcoal, without ever using thumb-smudge in order to blend. Funny, and sometimes even new things emerge out of such practices!

Endword - I have personally found the study of Gauguin with charcoal pencils highly enjoyable.

Roy
ps - click the link below to see an example - in this case a study of "Tehemana" or more famously "Manao Tupapao" in charcoal pencils. Thanks!

i like this...it gets to the bottom of my problem.
i can't really add anything else to your posts, i think you nailed it square.

aprichelle...thanks for the input & welcome to els 4 gats, i hope to see more from you.

i don't know about everyone else, but the holidays sap my time. not that i've been doing anything constructive, you know. but it's good to be back, for now at least. when the school year starts back up again i'll probably be a lot more active. you guys are talking me through my senior year :-P

Not at all, Lina, not at all! I enjoyed going through your post.

"I know that I have old, old prejudices about copying ..."

Its great that you could tell prejudice from principles - not many people can. It is useful to take black or white postures on many things in life, but obduracy and art - I believe, are uncomfortable bed-fellows. On a different note... I am still searching for the roots of my very own artistic compulsions(i.e. why on earth do I need to paint) and may very well come a cropper, but at least it keeps me intellectually alive. It is not that the urge to paint overwhelms all other activities in my life. Far from it, the muse of 'my' art is the most delicate and the least assertive. It will wait in the shadowy recesses of my mind till all other activities have ceased. If different matters clamour for my attention simultaneously the muse of art is invariably the least competitive. At times, I may not be painting for weeks(a phase I am going through presently), but when she(the muse, who else!) does emerge upfront - images explode right 'behind' my retina, and I begin to 'see' things in their finest detail - color, form, texture, consistency, perspective. Is this the "inspiration" CMcVay mentioned? Could be, but the story doesn't end there. I try to hold on to those images, and they do fade with time, losing their original focus. But the basic elements, and the associated emotion remain etched in memory. If, and when I ultimately decide to paint out of that temporal storehouse, I seek reference from real objects, objects which had been constituent elements in that image - like say, in the case of an image of a super gigantic mango hovering overhead, something akin to an alien spacecraft, I will walk down to the market and hunt for the most intimidating mango! So is that copying now?

When I am not inside that roomful of exploding images I usually doodle aimlessly on scraps of paper(which pile up in overflowing bins) or draw cartoons. During such lazy moments I may also indulge in copying paintings or drawings which attract me, or draw from pictures of sculptures. When I feel a bit more enterprising I paint still-lives which gives me the instant gratification associated with watching well-made pop movies(this is no snobbery - I really enjoyed "Titanic"). Often such lazy 'copying' excercises result in fascinating discoveries, like I have mentioned in previous posts. In the end, it is all about what I need to do, and what makes me happy. Painting, for me is not a moral journey.

Roy

ps - The link to a small Gauguin copy, placed in a previous post appears to have gone dead. Probably the Guardians have removed it, and I fail to understand why!

I'm pretty sure there is a book about Picasso's penchant for copying the great masters, written in the late '90's. I did a quick google search for it, didn't find it, but instead came up with this article about an exhibition that addresses the topic.

One more question, what kind of paper do you use with acrylic paint?

Roy

PS-as regards that acrylic query, almost any paper, somewhat tough and smooth, will do. I cannot specify the weight since the one I mostly use is simply known as "chart paper", commonly available where I live and possibly used to design informal charts/posters etc. The wonder that is acrylics makes is possible to paint on a wide variety of surfaces.

PPS- ...and oh! The Cezanne link somehow didn't work. I went to that gallery but couldn't download the pictures. Will retry, but thanks anyway.

We can see the history of the art and see as everything is time and time again repeated, as they are occurred the communication channels between cultures, to see the appropriations, the contextualización of the appropriations, and thus to see once again repeat history; it is certain that each culture creates a "Own Style" but such 'Style' was created by means of a series of cycle of appropriation, would be impossible to say that what made a culture was 100% original one, unless we are refering to the art of Altamira or Lascaux, always exists a level of previous knowledge that will be used us for the creation as a new 'designe' but the function comes being the same one.

But, what happens with certain cultures in which there was no a Communication channel and nevertheless continued seeing similar elements. We can put the example of the culture Maya and Egypt, that incredible coincidences, and although has incredible differences the man fixed them in both ends TO CREATE. And more incredible still, Egypt shows certain appropriations of the paleolithic, although there are tests of such no contact, and the Mayans, what?

Thus, a present battle of Inspiration VERSUS Copy, does not have sense if we don't look back and we see History, since there we could find many answers, which, like always, could help us to perhaps include/understand to us at the moment.

Ancoba

I think what you said about your current work being play is important and worthy of it's own thread. I think people are at their most creative when at play. An example from the history of art is Picasso (again), specifically analytic cubism which was a playful communication between Picasso & Braque. Then synthetic cubism, which brings us back to the topic of the thread, using text cut out of a newspaper, and so on, not even "copying", a playful way of using common, everyday materials. And, decorative cubism as I understand it was Picasso's response to his great rival, Matisse.

Back to Ancoba's question about photography. I don't think a photograph is a copy. At best, it is a likeness. I like what you said about intercultural exchange of ideas. Some of the richest art is from periods of open-minded, free-flowing interpretations of another cultures aesthetic.

Ancoba

Do you mean -"Is photo a copy of the world it describes, or the scene/object/people etc it displays?"? I think not, of course! But if you have a set of prints of the same shot on the table, printed under similar conditions, I guess we can safely say that each print is a copy. But then, which is the original? The object, scene, person, flower etc that was photographed? Again, I think not. Those things belong to the 3D world, as perceived by our senses. Those things have real depth, one can actually walk around the person photographed. Something quite different from the 2D image obtained through technical means. So what was the original of which the prints were the copy? The choice of frame, focal length(plane of focus) and aperture(which controls the amount of light incident on the film). In other words - the photographic vision. Something unique to each individual. This is where art complements science, subjective works with the objective to create a unique visual sensation. How on earth could a photograph be a copy - the definition stops at the very basic level of aiming to take a shot! One could add to this the many dimensions and layers of interpretation inherent in a photograph, revealed to viewers of differing sensitivity and experience, the same viewer at different states of emotion and/or stages of experience, and as Lina(laa_laa) describes, through various technical processes. The photograph viewed 24 years ago, and the one with the "nude lady on the rock" are the same, when "thickly" considered, yet they provide completely different creational experiences. As far as I am concerned, all those copies(the prints) on the table do have an original, and it resides in the phtographer's mind.

Seen from this viewpoint, I think the debate on the so called "representational" paintings being copies from nature becomes vastly complicated.

Roy

PS-Lina, welcome back! Althea, thanks again for your kind words. Yes, 15 indeed! I am 33 now. The last serious stretch of painting I did was at the age of 15 or 16, after which I took this muse for granted and went exploring other challenges. Painting has reclaimed me in the last 3-4 years.