Under the Influence

For any artist in any media, the line between reference, influence, plagiarism and pastiche is a fine one. Even if one knows the line well, there is the issue of how to exclude or include them in your own work?

Being well versed in the history of art-form you are engaged in is a good thing; but when does it become a bad thing? Never before in the history of creativity have we had so much access to so much inspiration.

My house is overflowing with books, records and artefacts from the creative world. Although I am an artist I am also a consumer of creative product, a connoisseur, an expert or at least a dilletante possessed of a strong opinion. I relish in these documents of creativity and in some way define myself by them and by my association with them.

How often when asked to describe a new band or artist would you say "They are a bit like...or it reminds me of such and such". Only the truly innovative, as ever, define categorisation.

Sometimes a particular record or book will fire me up to engage in my own distinct and unique oeuvre of originality. This is often lessened by the awareness that I am 'copying' or 're-interpreting' what I have been so enthused by. Sometimes this realisation of influence kills all creative enthusiasm dead, spurring me to crack another beer and bemoan my own mediocrity.

This is reinforced by the evidence of retro-retro-retro-chic, pervading the media in fashion, music, film and literature. We living in an 'Apres-Garde' time. The regurgitation of previous cultural styles and interests is natural and can be rewarding. However the law of 'copying' states that with each reproduction a loss of quality occurrs. Imperceptible to those who see it for the first time but for those who have seen every decade since their birth repeated culturally at least once it is the law of diminishing returns.

It is often perceived also that the quality of the influence informs the perception of originality. If I utilise junk-mail in my work, that could be seen as ironic, playful and acceptable. If however I utilise the paintings of Pablo Picasso in some way, I am more likely to be judged as a plagiarist or lacking in imagination. This is because of the percieved creative value of the respective source materials not the level of original thought required to interpret them.

When recently in a discussion about plagiarism regarding graphic design, I opined that there was no-one who could realistically claim, completely original work. An opinion for which I was criticised. Though I believe the statement to be true, it was definitely not an insult or a reassurance about my own mediocrity. It was a statement of fact and acknowledgement that the first artist, did not create something entirely original, they interpreted their environment and it is the nuance and quality of that interpretation that we value as art.