Analogies to Copying Artists
Personal Notes on the Act of Copying Artist’s Work
Signature Analogy: Take the analogy of a person’s signature: although all of us (who write) use the same letters of the alphabet, and use the same materials (pen and paper), each one of us scribes a unique mark for identification. Each is expressive and different, because it is derived from within—that is, the self. Our signature is in large part based upon our own peculiar manipulative hand motor skills and the life-long experience of signing things over and over again under a myriad of different conditions. It is how we identify ourselves to others. When done frequently enough, one’s signature may tend to evolve into something less representational than the connection of comprehensive cursive letters from the alphabet—that is, something more abstract in a unique flow of lines and flourishes. But the expressiveness or individual distinction is there, and clearly, although virtually indecipherable, still recognizable as your identification mark, since you alone can continuously repeat it with validity, subconsciously with virtually no effort.
Now, for someone to attempt to duplicate your signature, it requires much effort to consciously learn the mechanics of hand motions that created it—it is fraudulent and will possess no “expressiveness.” And keep in mind that the so-called duplication will be but one of the infinite variety of signatures that you create yourself. This is because no one signature of an individual is an exact duplicate of another by the same individual—they may appear very much the same, and retain the same unique expressive characteristics, but in fact they are not identical.
The fact that someone is attempting to duplicate your signature would be viewed with deep suspicion. Firstly, I think one would feel very uncomfortable about it at the outset, and in the worst case, suspect that it will be used for unethical or illegal purposes.
If one substitutes the word “art” for “signature” in the above, I believe that the arguments essentially remain intact, especially with respect to the preceding paragraph. Those disagreeing may argue that in the classroom, demonstrators and teachers indirectly promote the copying of their work. I believe the signature analogy supports a counter to this argument: in younger days, when we all took penmanship in school, we copied our teachers in learning how to cursively put letters together to form words, including our signature. We all more or less learned from that experience, but then in time copying became irrelevant, and we moved on towards a more individual and expressive form of identification for ourselves.
Art as Experience
Artists often liken the making of an original work of art to the metaphor of a “journey” or “exploration” along a creative “path” when inspired by new concepts or ideas. I believe the analogy is valid if one considers the “journey” of making--with all of its ups and downs, trials and tribulations, unanticipated setbacks and subsequent elation at resolutions--as an “experience.” The American painter Mark Rothko aptly cited in a 1959 interview, “A painting is not a picture of an experience, it is an experience.” The analogy is straightforward if we look at what happens, for example, when one goes on a physical journey, such as a visit for the first time to a distant land.
The journey initially takes place as a concept or idea in one’s mind, based upon visual and written information as well as an anticipated feeling of the “experience” that such a visit would bring about. The journey is planned on the basis of preconceived ideas of the itinerary from the start of the trip to its conclusion. One can attempt to anticipate all of the individual day-to-day events that will make up the journey, but these are hypothetical to what will actually occur once the journey is underway. There may be delays imposed upon your goal of visiting sites, and often impromptu decisions to be made for altering portions of the journey to something other than what was planned. There may be hardships imposed due to circumstances beyond your control. However, as a result of these, there may also be many positive unforeseen events that take place, such as being invited by local people to talk or visit, or who may offer something better that what you could have ever hoped for in the first place. Upon return, you may be asked how you enjoyed the journey. Whether positive or negative, one could argue that it was an “experience,” when all of the unforeseen events occurring during the trip were taken into consideration. In fact, sometimes the negative events may be viewed rather humorously, now that the immediacy and anxiety of the situation is gone.
It has been said, the one thing to remember about an adventure is that if it turns out the way you expect it to, then it really has not been an adventure at all. By analogy, the making of art is just this sort of journey. The end result for the artist will be a work of art that was created from the “experience” of making that is very personal. And it will always feel differently than the making of similar subsequent—albeit more refined—work. Looking at the piece, an observer will not have a clue as to the “journey” the artist traversed to make it, nor the emotions and feelings that he/she experienced during the creative process. A person that copies this work cannot possibly create an expressive piece because of the experience the artist endured in creating the original.
J. Paul Fennell 9/15/2005, revised 4/1/2015