Copying Discussion Follow-Up
My earlier post, The Art of Copying, generated some eloquent and thought-provoking comments both on the site and via email. Though I could not respond individually to each post, I did want to offer my sincere and heartfelt thanks to those who took the time to consider and comment, whether they agreed with my position or not. As much as the comments themselves, I also appreciated learning that other photographers are as passionate in articulating their deeper thoughts and philosophies on the essence of what we do and why we do it.
I did want to offer a small clarification regarding the context for the post. I was explicitly referring to situations in which a photographer will knowingly and deliberately set out to copy another’s work and claim it as their own, for praise or profit.
As I responded to one person via email, not one of us can claim they are not standing on the shoulders of giants. We all learn and improve by adopting ideas, concepts, and techniques we find interesting in the work of others. Still, there is a moral distinction between such adaptive learning, and outright deliberate copying with the intent of laying claim to the resulting accolades.
While exchanging comments, references to music and to attribution were brought up. Those who have not read the complete thread may be interested in two other related posts: Things Photographers Can Learn from Musicians, and The First Step Towards Personal Style.
I would also like to acknowledge that my own thinking on the subject had evolved over time, and I can see the confusion my new position may have caused (as highlighted by Floris’ comment).
Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to a recent article by Charlie Borland, a man whose work I deeply respect and who offers a professional’s perspective on the topic. Charlie’s site, Pro Nature Photographer, is a wonderful resource to anyone who shares a passion for nature and photography and aims to pursue them professionally.
Category: Rants and Raves, Thoughts and Musings
Thank you Guy for being such a fine instigator of quality thought and commentary on this important subject. My father landscape photographer Philip Hyde had very strong feelings about it because he worked very hard his entire career to develop his own vision to keep people from comparing him to “You Know Who.” Any photographer whose website looks like they went around to the “checklist” and checked off various locations, will be passed over and dismissed by the best photo editors and serious collectors. If your photograph of Old Faithful Geyser or a California beach sunset is your bestseller, I would ask to whom is it selling and what is their knowledge about art and photography? Anything that a master photographer did before you, cannot easily be improved on. This does not mean that our new generation of photographers cannot sometimes stumble across a unique cloud formation hanging low over White House Ruin or even unique conditions over Half Dome. It is well-known that there are a number of photographers who have done something unique in the Southwest, and there is a lot of disdain for the many copycats roaming the region. This is widely commented upon in the photographic literature. The next generation must do something else entirely. We have to ask ourselves, why we got into photography in the first place? We have to dig for our own meaning and direction. We must at all costs, eliminate anything that even hints of copying the copiers. That’s my take, anyway, for what it’s worth, and my idea of what is necessary to make any contribution to the art of landscape photography.
David,
Thank you for this and your earlier response! I am, of course, in complete agreement. Indeed I continually find inspiration in revisiting your father’s works for that very reason: they are unique and personal interpretations. I have no need or desire to duplicate them. The images tell stories. As photographers we are often the story tellers, but we must not lose our ability to enjoy the simple and inherently human pleasure of hearing a great story told by others.
Guy
[...] I commented on Guy Tal’s blog post, “Copying Discussion Follow-Up,” we all from time to time can benefit from some introspection. Current landscape photographers [...]
I guess I was a little late to see the old discussion. I’m that photographer that mentioned the quote on facebook that got you interested.
“A landscape photographers best work will always be something that can not be duplicated by another professional, everything else is just practice.”
Guy, I think you have misconstrued what I mentioned into something it is not. As landscape photographers we copy, copy, copy, I doubt there is anyone out there who hasn’t done it once. In the end when we are done and unable to create new art are rarest work will be valued the most just like baseball cards. The rare ones are the ones that hold value, we should value are rarest work. Every photographer has a piece of work that can not be duplicated. Students practice by mimicking their mentors. This is the way I learned to create art but I value my own art the most that was not created by an attempt to duplicate another photographer. Every photographer is free to let go of their art of copying state and return to it whenever he or she pleases.
Steve, thank you for posting a response!
I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. It was actually a somewhat “deliberate misunderstanding,” which is why I didn’t point back to the original discussion or the people involved. I really wanted to take the one point raised to generate this discussion.
I still don’t agree that “as landscape photographers we copy, copy, copy”. Certainly this is the case with many beginners, as well as those who enjoy visiting places they see in others’ images to experience them in person. I’m not judging either. My issue (as I clarified in my follow-up) is with those who deliberately make copies to profit from the vision of others and claim the glory without paying tribute to the person they know to be the original artist.
Guy
Guy, I was merely clarifying in the case that your following might have come across the quote since it was more of a transformed idea here in you blog. I know you were not putting me on the spot since I was not identified. Ideas get transferred and things get stirred up so I was just covering myself since the idea was modified in your own way so no hard feelings.
There is a large percentage of photographers that copy work and I doubt it will ever end just grow larger as time permits. The group that does not copy either by choice or their given location and the lack of things to copy, finds many interesting and more rare opportunities. In my opinion “rare” is something to strive for. In the end it is all art and the person standing in front of the piece at a given moment will decide if it is worthy or not regardless of other influencing opinions. This individual is just one of many in the general population creating a majority or a minortity.
For the old discussion, if anyone would choose to destroy something that would be taking a part in a criminal act. I’m a naturalist so harming the earth is not something I want to do and I do believe in the greater good man to not do this. You hear more of this type of distruction in the South West with it’s fragile formations scattered about. We do not have the bulk of formations that could easily be destroyed out here in California. I do have many locations that I consider secret to myself. Some locations I may not ever tell where they are, some aren’t even a secret, the rest I may give subtles clues in an internet post or maybe give someone a hint so they can go off an explore just like I did. I don’t think there is anything wrong with keeping a book of secrets.
I was watching a short slideshow on landscape photography years before digital was created and in that slideshow there were the photos of trees in the circular holes in the rock. They were black and white but I immediately thought of thought you. Was this what inspired you go out and photograph them or was it all on your own accord? Same thing with the wildflowers near Caineville, Utah? Obviously there are you don’t have replicas but is that where your inspiration came from? As photographers if we do make it out there with the intent to copy in some way or another at least we do it slightly differently.
This is not exactly in line about copying but close enough that I thought it worth reading.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/blog/the-bloggers/2010/05/5831/. This post is short and to the point. I think Kevin Schafer sheds some light on why some photographers “chase the icons”.
I think we all have been a little guilty from time to time…..;0)
Thanks for the clarifications, Guy. It all makes more sense now, in particular with the stress on this subject:
“My issue (as I clarified in my follow-up) is with those who deliberately make copies to profit from the vision of others and claim the glory without paying tribute to the person they know to be the original artist.”
In the end I’ll still agree with Steve, if I had to pick my best work, it would be images that I doubt will ever be duplicated.