This was a question I pondered after reading people discussing plagiarism vs. original art, and I started wondering where the line between original art vs. plagiarism actually lies.
Here are 10 of my pictures, that I’ve given a percentage score on, starting with 100% original and working down to 50% or less. I’d call anything over 50% my own original art, but this is subjective and totally arbitrary. And that is the nature of art!
All these pictures taken from my old Frot blog have been through a similar process of digital editing, including being cropped to a 1×1 ratio, and finishing off with a black frame and my www.frot.co.nz URL. I’d be happy to post any of these pictures anywhere online, but I’m not a commercial artist, and I imagine some of them would cross an imaginary line in the sand for commercial use. But I have no idea where that line would be. I’d say anything above 50% is fully legit, but below that may not be.
1. FREAK DOG TOMATO THING – 100%
For my first picture I’ll go totally safe – this is originally a painting I did with acrylics on canvas. It’s all from the deranged contents of my subconscious, so I’ll call this 100% original.
2. STRANGE SCENE IN THE STREET WITH DOG PISSING – 100%
Most of my art is based on drawings I randomly do using pen on paper and then add colours. This is the sort of bizarre stuff I seem to keep drawing, it’s all mine but don’t ask me to explain it’s deeper meanings!
3. GROOVING OUT AT THE SUPERMARKET – 80%
This is not a photo from a nightclub, it’s actually taken in a supermarket. The guy in the photo just happened to be standing in line in front of me. The original photo looks fairly different, and although the subject might be totally oblivious to the fact that he was being photographed, I’d use this image anywhere and would give it an 80% score.
4.BIG BIRD IS LURKING IN THE BUSHES 80%
This is a photo I took of an ornament in a garden. It is just a mass produced garden ornament so I’m not likely to be sued for copyright! I’d say this is pretty safe ground and score it 80%. Not my original sculpture but the photo is all mine, and I’d happily use this image anywhere.
5. GET THAT FUCKING CAMERA OUT OF MY FACE – 70%
Strangers in the street are one of my favourite photo subjects. I regard anything in the public domain as mine to record, but some people disagree. Would all the people I photograph like me using their photos online? Hell no! – in fact the ones that look pissed off are often my favourites. This lady did not look impressed that I was taking her photo. I like this photo but would be a bit careful about where I posted it. So 70% on this one I guess.
6. A COUPLE OF ABORIGINAL GUYS – 60%
This a drawing I did based on part of a photo of two Australian aboriginal guys. But it’s not my photo and I no longer even have a copy of the original. My drawing is a bit different to the photo but probably fairly recognizable. I’d call this my own art but wouldn’t use it for an advertising campaign!. I’ll score this as 60% original because although I’ve changed it a lot, I’d be on shaky ground if anyone asked about the original photo.
7. SNAKE PSYCHEDELIC PARTY – 50%
This drawing was originally done by a friend – I just coloured it in and did some edits – but she was happy for me to do that and liked how my version looked. I’d call it a collaboration, and would ask permission to use it commercially for any purpose. And if it made a bunch of money I’d give her half, so I’ll call it 50%.
8. AN INSECT AT THE WETA WORKSHOP. 50%
I take photos of all sorts of things, and with things like cars and motorbikes I don’t hesitate to call it my own work. But 3D art is trickier. This is a photo of a sculpture I took at the display at the Weta Workshop here in Wellington.
My edit does look a bit different to the original, but the original was very cool and I make no claim to there being much of my original art here. So it’s my photo but not really my art. And this is based on a photo of a model from a very commercial source. Where is the line?
9. SKULLS GETTING MARRIED ON A WALL – 50%
Street art is another thing I like to take photos of – It’s not my art though, and I have no idea who originally painted it. So although it's based on my photo, taken in the public domain, it is very recognizable and not my original work. I like to edit photos of street art but have no idea if that is considered OK.
10. WONDER WOMAN GOES QUAD – ?%
I like to do edits of random pictures from the internet, and from my own image collection. Pictures of Wonder Woman are all over the place, and I have no idea where this original photo came from to start with (but I do have a copy of it). Here I have edited it into four different coloured copies, but Andy Warhol used to do that sort of thing a lot. Is this above or below the 50% line? I have no idea…
Some people certainly think he was, but I used to like some of his wonky looking art, so was blinded to all this… This review on the other hand is no holds bared scathing about him:
“He was such a super asshole. It’s all about attitude – I guess if you just look at the art and don’t know anything about him then the art, in and of itself, could be considered beautiful – but then you find out about him, and it’s hard to still like his art – because then I can see the taunting fuck you message he is sending off – if he had had an attitude of care about the images instead of being a total vampire – he basically sucked the life out of things and then spat them back out as a Polaroid.
He funded a lot of very sick people getting hooked on dope for 15 min of fame in the factory – he fed on weak people’s weaknesses – he did not uplift them – but instead he added more sickness to sickness – and surely he didn’t know any better – but Andy Warhol is like the iconic human version of what Facebook is now – YUCK. He had no aspirations to uplift or grow or be better, instead he reveled in sickness and made more of it…
Yes, the art has a certain beauty but the multiple nature of it is what makes me cringe… I was taught in art school to see beauty in everything including common artifacts of society- like a toaster or a watering can or a fork knife spoon – even a Campbell’s soup can- but he took it that one step further and debased the image- and the did the same with humans-
What did he contribute to society? It’s like Madonna - who took the last vestiges of goodness and sexed it up - laying the groundwork for all that we have now… they both took the dregs and made them into fake diamonds… I just detest Andy Warhol so much that it’s impossible for me to really enjoy his work…”
Basically I think most popular culture is manipulated to some extent by agencies like the Tavistock institute or programs like MK Ultra.
But having said that, most of my favourite music, movies, and art, are part of that social programming. So I can’t dismiss it all because the intentions behind it may have been bad, because it’s my inspiration. I think the internet was set up by the deep state for evil intent but I still use it every day..
Andy Warhol seems to me to have been a very original thinker with some fairly severe personality disorders.
I think he was an “Asset” (a creator manipulated and used by agencies) rather than another talent-less puppet put in place by the agencies and lifted to popularity (like all modern pop stars) or a shill (like Alex Jones)
So I see his art as being original and it resonates with me – sometimes I do a picture and only afterwards realise his influence on my own pictures – like this one: