I recieved a great e-mail this week asking if I might give my opinion on Elena Ilku. Basically, it revolved around the line between original art and plagarism.
To quote the e-mail:
Apparently, the three or four commercial galleries who represent this artist refuse to respond to any questions about the artist’s integrity, and also the verity of the galleries’ website claims that this artist’s works are of “high originality.”
Is it original work, or just a bunch of plagarism?
So, while I can’t vouch for whether or not the commercial galleries representing Elena Ilku responded, I thought it would be a great topic for discussion here. For the purpose of post-length and discussion-building, I will be posting the five case studies as separate posts. Below is the first.
Is this original art? Plagarism? Something in between? Let us know what you think in the comments section below. I’ll start the discussion off!
Case #1: The Party Dress
The first image is a photo by Gianfranco Ferre. Both of the following works by Elena Ilku are alleged to have been sold in galleries in British Columbia without any attribution to Ferre.
Photo by Gianfranco Ferre for Alexandra Black's book, "The Party Dress."
Warm Glow, Elena
Birds and Roses, Elena Ilku
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
I am definitely not a lawyer. That’s my disclaimer.
I think that artists (based on my sample size of one) require inspiration. That inspiration can come from their own imagination, their thoughts and feelings, or the outside world. Inspiration, however, cannot be mistaken for creative vision.
When one produces a piece and calls it original, I feel that there is an implicit obligation for the work to be of one’s own creative vision. Taking the creative vision of another artist without permission and without attribution is, in my humble opinion, plagarism.
Media change or not, it is clear to me that the creative vision for all of these pieces is Gianfranco Ferre’s.
What do you think?
If an artist is using a reference which is not their own (IE. painting from photographs, paintings of paintings), they should put “after (original artist’s name)” in the title. If they do not, it is plagiarism.
Example:
Original
Photo by Gianfranco Ferre for Alexandra Black’s book, “The Party Dress.
Elena
Warm Glow (After Gianfranco Ferre), Elena
The case of plagarism is a very difficult matter. It is hard e.g. to prove that something was invented or painted by me if simultanously someone else has did the same or very similar … but it happens, especially in these days were there is a lot more creations ..
Ljubica: I’m really glad we got an artist’s perspective on this and I totally agree with you that there needed to be some sort of recognition passed to Gianfranco Ferre.
Polish Folk Art: Yes, it is very difficult to discern sometimes. As the internet grows, and more and more information is shared, I think it will become increasingly more difficult to tell when someone has copied another artist’s vision.
My goodness, those two paintings are so similar to the photo by Gianfranco Ferre. The placement of the flowers in the hat, the angle of the face – it all seems so similar.
The fact that the artist has produced two works which are alone similar to each other would seem to indicate that the works are done in a production-line fashion, and therefore not “original” in terms of creativity, at least in relation to each other.
Actually proving that the painted works were copied from the Ferre photo would involve more investigation, but it certainly appears they could have been made with some sort of coloring book approach, using the original photo as a guide. As a buyer, I would probably call this plagiarism, given the lack of attribution.
Recently I was reading a letter in Artist’s Magazine that outlined rules for many international art competitions. For art to be entered into a competition it must be wholly original, taken from what the artist has seen, imagined, or photographed personally. Even if they asked the photographers permission they cannot use their photo (even if altering the image significantly) and call it original art.
Twice I have used photo references for art I was planning on selling, and asked the photographer permission to use their photo, and I gave them credit for the image. Otherwise it would be a violation of copyright, and I could have been sued by the original artist/photographer.
That is really a beautiful photograph…
and so – I find – are the paintings. Shame this artist did not give proper credit to Ferre. That being the case I’d say it is plagiarism.
This is a rather attenuated discussion.
Ferre was a clothing designer. That group of artists who are well known to rip each other off. He even said a few years ago, ” I confess that I have stolen ideas and inspirations”
I suspect that the credit mentioned is not for the photo but the design of the clothing pictured in the book. Ferre is not going to be wasting his time photographing his own work.
As for the artist accused, it is clearly market driven art and the discussion becomes a circle of sillyness.
There is a real danger in a sense in putting your own artwork out there, at the risk of having it appropriated. I police my own frequently by using all search engines available, with many permutations of my name, the technique, the title and the date. I check all links, i follow up on comments and “inspired by’s”.
The worst case i’ve heard of is Samantha Beeston article
I agree that the paintings are very close to the photo, still they are not going to be mistaken for that photographer’s work, by anyone. It might be nice of that artist to give credit for the original work that was used, they are not exact copies – just close.
Now my opinion may be prejudiced because I take pictures from magazines, etc and use those to pattern parts in my paintings, quite often. It is the only way I can get the proportions close enough to recognize it as a paticular bird or animal ( flowers seem to be a lost cause inspite of using a picture to pattern from ). I could not recall who had contributed what in a painting, if I ever knew.
Also there are a million pictures / paintings very much alike. Each done as an original thought or idea by the artist, yet close enough to those others to look like they were ‘perhaps’ copied if compared.
To sell a copied painting as an original is wrong, period, especially as an original by that first artist, or as your own original work if you copied it with or without giving credit.
We all learn by patterning, trying to copy things.
Interesting topic, basically it’s an artist being inspired by another form of work, being from a photo taken by someone of someone or a painting by another artist. Indeed I find nothing wrong with this motif however I do agree with the majority that credit should be given by outlining that the original piece was of course by Gianfranco Ferre. I also know quite a few artists that commission paintings based on other more well known artists and placing them on their websites or blogs as their originals without a mention of anyone else, bit odd really. Though interesting nevertheless, thanks for sharing.
That is a tough call. I have to agree with Kathleen. If the image is that close of a comparison you should credit the original photographer in some manner. You have to respect the artists original concept. I am interested in contemporary Calgary artists. Does anyone know of some? vexedart.com is a site that I have been hearing about. Anybody else have any suggestions. Thanks.