What is original art

LOL yes! Yes! I am talking about the competitions. Oh my Lord, I cannot keep up... I am multi tasking and trying to keep up with this forum...

It has been very interesting to learn and see how people perceive what qualifies or not.  But the best description was from  Starrpoint and Helen which would alleviate allot of the misunderstandings when people apply for an art contest... The brough up very good points...

Have A Great Day!

Lise King

 

Thanks, Lisa,

Anyone or any group that puts on a competion venue should state clearly what is and what is not allowed.

And people,

Read the prospectus. If you do not understand what they want, call or write them and ask. Sometimes groups use wording that is non-specific or easly mis-understood, so don't be afraid to ask for clerification.

I expect a lot of e-mail next week when the Renaissance's new prospectus hits the website, for clarification, etc.

We are doing a spring show for color complements, and I know there is going to be a lot of questions!

OK, Starrpoint, you've got my curiosity up. What is Renaissance (and I am talking about the one in particular that you mentioned in your previous forum entry - I am just waiting for someone to jump in and give me a definition of Renaissance).

Sounds interesting. Just the combination of "spring show" and "color complements" sounds like an art party to me.

Opps,

Sorry Margo.

I sometimes forget that people don't know all about me.

I belong to a small artist co-op in Huntington, WV known as The Renaissance Art Gallery, or as we say amoung ourselves, "the gallery".

It is called the Renaissance Gallery, because we are located in the old high school building. When the town built a new, modern High school, instead of tearing down the old building it was pre-purposed.

It was named The Renaissance Building, as Renaissance means rebirth. It now serves the community as 1. Senior, low-income houseing, 2. YMCA and daycare center and 3, a home for the arts.

We have a visual arts group (us) and performing arts groups and clubs. We sponsor art events, exhibition, afterschool activities, etc. There are painting classes, singing lessons, dances, plays, concerts, etc.

We have two classrooms for our gallery and school.

But that is how I know about putting on a show and what to do.

I write the propectus.

The Renaissance Art Gallery is simply one in a group that serves the community. http://www.orgsites.com/wv/renaissance/index.html

 

That's interesting.

Well Georgiegirl, original art is when you create somthing from your own effort. Copying from someone else is not original. Your art league president is out on a limb that is ready to fall.

All the best

Grahame

I completely disagree with that art league president.  If, however, during the painting session, there was some instruction being given, or if any of the participants help or guide or apply medium to a painting other than their own -- then I could see him saying it isn't original.   I'm wondering if the problem he has is that you did the setting up of the model and the others "copied" your layout.

But as you stated, if I'm out in a field and you're out in a field...mine will be original and so will yours.

this incident shows how important communication is. If this had been discussed before hand, ea. by the painters, but also by the art league president. Hard feelings and frustrations are the results of poor communication. And Assumptions.

The people painting in this group assumed that what they would be doing would be understood, The art league president assumed that her understanding of original art was understood, and agreed upon by all members.

I would dare say, no where in the documentation of the organization is this defined anywhere.

Don't assume that words mean  the same everywhere.

Think about it.

Your definition of the word "house" depends on where in the world you live.

In New York city it might mean an apartment or semi-detached building, in Illinois an white clapboard two story, along the amazon a thatched one-room hut. But in all cases, they are what locals think of as "house"

So to, the definition of just what is original art. This is very much a matter of interpretation.

Hi Starrpoint, If i may, there is so much more... Art or not, original or not, copy or not, student or not, artist or not, amateur or not. All tend to matter greatly as we all wish to be understood. Just suppose God is the original artist and his creations are the only original art. This would make everything else some form of a copy. So who is to say what is or is not original art? No one seems to take issue with the drawings of the "Masters". Even works that show heavy influence from a teacher or fellow artists are still called "Originals" by said artist. Impressionism came about from one who influenced many. Who he was can be debated. Does anyone want to call the works of his fellows some form of copying him? Perhaps each one of us wants to achieve realization and integrity of self. Allowing for this does seem to support the point of having ones own mind in the first place! Perhaps the artist takes this journey via creating art. That anyone else will have a personal view is the nature of "being"! And time seems to settle the issue by making all works known to be by (the hand of) one artist "original works of art"! But this may only be how"I see" it. Does anyone understand?

I could not agree with you more.

Unfortunately, many organizations have to deal with the legal definition of original art, and this may differ greatly from what we would rightly acknowledge as art.

In today's world, with so many law suits and such. this definition has spilled over into the art world. What the lawyers can prove is original or derivative is more important that freedom of creativity.

This is very sad, actually. But reality none the less.

 

I think I do, but no matter what, we are all copying from each other what we like about that particular piece, then integrate our own signature into the piece, like our hand writing; weather we like it our not.

For me, God is the Ultimate Master Artist that set the template for us to learn from with the freedom for us to add a bit of ourselves into the art piece.

As we grow, we see art that appeals to us and mutate into that genre by trying to master that style with our own signature into that piece, then another and another.

No matter what, the end result shows our signature into the piece, which makes it original. It is when we try to trace and carbon copy the compositional essence of someone else piece that makes our art piece not an original, for we lacked the creative process that comes from within us. How we see our world.

From my piont of view just like a nose,

Lise King

Of course we do. Art does not exisit in a vacumn, without social or cultural reference. If it did, art would not make sense to anyone but the artist. Without these references, art lacks communication, This is one reason many people find abstract art so hard to deal with, they lack the cultural references to make it make sense to them. They have missed the context that would explain it.

So yes, in a way, all art is derivative. But again, here the question was is the work done in a group painting session original art, and while I can understand where the first lady was coming from and why, I think both she and the group needed to communicate better so a true understanding of what was need for this show was understood by all.

 

I agree with you, it is original art!   It is each artist's interpretation.  No one is telling the artists to "do it this way"..."use this color"......"ok, now...let's all paint the hair just this way"....TOTALLY COPYING SOMEONE ELSE'S ART would NOT be original.  This is NOT what you are doing as a group.  I hope your art league president will be enlightened soon.  I totally agree with Karyn.  ;o) 

What a joke! So what if everyone is painting the same model. There are so many components to a good painting that simply focusing on the same subject from a different perspective will yield an original piece of art. How is it framed, composed, rendered.... you're saying that if something was painted once by someone already, everything that comes after it is not original? How sad that a new approach to the same subject or content is somehow not valid or unique, OR ORIGINAL? I consider copying something someone else created is not original. Otherwise, since we are not robots, almost everything not mechanically or digitally, created with the human hand, especially through observation is original. I think your art league president is living in the Dark Ages. Are your paintings from the same What more could make them each originals? If each person in the room painted a painting from the same photo in the middle of the room that might be different, because they are derived from one image (the original) yet still originals because none of them will be identical due to different skill levels of painting, medium used, etc. But each piece of art is still "original" . There is no other like it in the world. Better you should focus on asking is your approach to art and your subject matter unique. I think most artists create to produce something that hasn't been done before. Period. That is what is "original."

I am completely agree with your views Paul regarding original work.  It is tough to produce original work under supervision and guidance.