"art is either plagiarism or revolution." -paul gaugin
not true, referring to the former.
i would say the production of art, under some circumtances that it has a certain degree of similarity with other productions, is a creative attempt of expression that is confined within a certain genre.
composing songs, for example. how many times have you came across songs that are so similar in the rhythms, that you sometimes combine those songs into one? like one of flop poppy's song, which i can't remember the title, and edwin mccain's i'll be. both the songs are in the same genre of music. and how many times have you accidentally played, on your guitar, songs that you don't know how to, just because the sequence of the chords used in that song is similar to that of the song you intended to play?
cubism, although i may not know anything much about it, is another example. pablo picasso's and georges braque's paintings on cubism are incredibly similar to each other, because they both developed the analytic cubism style of painting. they were both studying the same genre. so, would the works of today's artists on cubism be seen as plagiarized versions of pablo picasso's famous frescoes on the same category?
art is huge. but we have this inclination to focus on only a small part of it, so that it is expressed in such a unique way that it cannot be perceived as just having an ordinary significance. however, when we narrow our options down as everybody else does, how can we not have similarities in the music and allegories we produce?
so, would having the same basis of producing art constitute plagiarism?
i know, i know. merepek kan? if only i took art as a subject in IB, this would've been a cool EE research question. ye laa tuu.
hmm. well it seems to me that art is either plagiarism or revolution indeed. but maybe, plagiarism sounds pretty strong a word for something that refers to similarity. if you know what i mean.i can relate to your saying that art is huge. it looks different from everyone's perception. say, a painting. what i see might differ from yours. but it doesn't necessarily mean we cannot come up with something similar. if we try to put all the things together, searching for their roots whatever, we might come across something similar in the end. so you see, nothing is original as it seems. but that is not to say, nothing can ever be original either. even paintings. to me, no matter how "similar" the two paintings might be, they are still considered a brilliant work of art, done by two natural artists, who might be INSPIRED by other artists as well. who knows? so i wouldn't say art is necessarily plagiarism- it's more like a diversion of something ordinary to something more complex. An inspiration :)
ReplyDeleteotherwise, get that research done and tell me more about it, cherie.
>>haha, merepek? gee, a good crap i must say!
omg.
ReplyDeleteyou actually took time to read and comment on this post?
you are officially my most favorite blog reader. hehe. =)