Did they then not create “original art”?

Art is a subjective expression of the artists feelings, thoughts and ideas.

Regardless of what tool, technique or method is used, it is the creative process that still comes from the artist’s free hand and human brain. The creative process is a series of aesthetic decisions made by the artist and the final outcome is the original result of the totality of the artist’s decisions. The more creative the process, the more original the art.

The question now becomes “to what DEGREE is this art original?” Because this question is never black/white.

Because we live in our environment and are saturated by imagery every day, we cannot help but be influenced by our environment. We are also exposed to other art and artists every day in our guilds, groups and classes. As humans we are ALWAYS being influenced by what is around us, it’s the nature of our being. Whether we consciously know it or not, these influences are shaping our work.

By the strict most conservative definition of “original art” there is almost NO art that is truly “original” because all the influences in our lives lead us to create each piece. What we think of as a “creative thought” is really several past experiences clashing together in our neurons and our brain spits out this tangled web of past experiences which we interpret as “creativity”. Just about everything that we all do is “derivative” of our past experiences and influences.

What do I believe? I believe it’s the creative process that defines the originality of the art NOT the tools or techniques used.

How is this possible?

One of my favorite books, Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light (P.S.) by Leonard Shlain, discusses how this is possible.  There are very few true revolutionaries in any medium. A revolutionary is someone who can step completely outside their envionmental influences to create something that has never been done before.

Take, for example, Giotto di Bondone (1276-1337).  Giotto is the first recorded artist to paint in perspective (three-dimensionally with a vanishing point). Up until that point, all known artists painted in two-dimensions (flat with no vanishing point). Physicists and mathematicians did not even invent the ability to graphically plot 3-dimensional space until the 1360s — well after Giotto died!

Within just a few decades, almost all artists has incorporated the concept of three-dimensional work into their art.  These artists “derived” from Giotto’s revolutionary discovery and incorporated it, into their own unique style.

This derivation of the influences happening around us is not something that we should be ashamed of as artists.  By adapting techniques created by others we advance our medium collectively.  We derive, make it our own, then influence others.  It’s highly probable that this “other famous artist” and I both were influenced by similar experiences and thus our work looks similar but not “the same”.

At first I was put off by the comment comparing myself to another artist. And then I realized – if my influences where similar to that other artists, then I’m proud to say that I’m taking risks and advancing my art. I know I’ll never be a true “revolutionary” like Giotto, but I do create some pretty great art!

Check out Art & Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time, and Light (P.S.) by Leonard Shlain if you want to read about the true revolutionaries in art throughout history. It’s a great read.