Michael Pandolfo wrote:
From the stolen land of our ancestors?
Do I pass the Native American Studies course you're conducting?
nyk fury wrote:
everybody steals. native americans, for that matter did too. artists steal creatively. douchtards steal stupidly and then get all butthurt when they get caught.
There's a difference, a huge difference, between taking an idea someone else has had, assimilating it, running with it, and producing a new and different work, and simply lifting or copying someone else's work and performing a minimal modification.
I can honestly say that I've never lifted anyone's idea but I have certainly been inspired by someone else's idea to create my own treatment. For example, I was very impressed by Hans Hoffman's cubist work, but at the same time a bit put off by the lack of depth. Got me thinking, "What would happen if you took the base concept of multi-colored rectangular shapes, added depth, and painted it on a multiply curved surface such as a woman's body?" I'll be giving it a try this weekend.
The thing is that I'm taking an idea that has been expressed in several pictures (the idea is not copyrightable, incidentally) not the pictures themselves, adding my own interpretations, personality and concepts, and producing a totally new work, the likes of which I've never seen. I have no idea whether or not anyone else has done the same thing. But my guess would be that something very like it has been done many, many times by many, many people, completely independent of one another. There is an unlimited number of original ideas floating around in the cosmos, none of which is totally unique.
If you don't understand the difference, then perhaps you are one of the people that might benefit from the reflection I suggested in my earlier post above.
All IMHO, as always
| 
| 
| edu