plagiarsm versus copy

Where does one ends and other one starts? I need your opinions on this , please .......

* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful

If I sit down and do a replica of the Mona Lisa, it's a copy. If I replace Leonardo's signature with my own, it's plagiarism. Copying another artists' work can teach us how they did it. It can be quite useful. Plagiarism is when I try to take credit for someone else's work, saying it's mine.

What's interesting to me is many post-modernists seem to think there's no such thing as NOT plagiarizing/copying. We're always taking things from other sources, mixing them together, and creating something 'new'. Is this plagiarism? If I, for example, take a replica of the Mona Lisa, cut it into squares, shuffle them, and call it 'new art' and sign it, is it plagiarism? I don't think so, but an argument could be made.

New art is created overtop of old art. What we've seen before, shapes what we're going to create next. I don't think that means we're constantly stealing from the past. It's just useful to know where we've been in order to figure out where we're going.

But I'm straying from your original question, so now I will stop.

Nik

It's not really a matter of opinion, but of law. Putting aside several complexities of the law, the basic concept is that if you represent some one else's work as your own, you are plagerizing. If you don't represent it as your own, it is copying (even though copying can be illegal in certain circumstances, as in 'No portion of this book can be reproduced in any manner without express permision of the publisher: etc.)

Erik Mattila

perhaps a violation of trademark =)

perhaps they do think that *as long as* no one is selling and getting profits from their works. also in most cases, that's because they doesnt create anything new or fresh, just crap with artspeak imo. it is ('almost' impossible to create 'clean' art without influences, but that doesnt mean it takes away the originality of the work. you can always claim someone's art to be from as deep as his parents dna, past lives etc. furthermore, we get more information/influences from one big newspaper than a ordinary human in medieval times get during his whole lifetime.

it's exploitation and raping of da vinci.

best artists forget the creations of past and create the visions by themselves imo.

-tomi

Plagiarism starts when you deliberately attempt to use the work of an artist for your own gain.

Alison

Unless you're Sherrie Levine. You know the old one about what art is, I know it when I see it? Must be something like that for plagiarism.

j John Haber