Today's truncated response forum was interesting on two fronts: first, it was near-dominated by responders whose essays were not only obtuse, but also were reaching, too far, to make some meaningless comment just for the sake of reading themselves; second, and this is more to the gist of today's subject, far too many of the letters appear to be written in the image of Robert's writings, copying his syntax, his phrasing, and his word choices. It's hard to know whether this is in the spirit of "imitation's being the sincerest form of flattery", or if it is in the spirit of "imitation's being the lowest form of sucking up."

a) Joe: If you were referring to my comment, then you were miles off the mark. For evidence of my writing style, look at my other comments here, some of which are satirical, or go to my other website www.faithpuleston.de where a few examples of my other ORIGINAL work can be read, or go to www.redbubble.com and type "faithart". I assure you that I copy no one and have no need to, being adequately eloquent myself, and I am sure that I speak for many others. Of course, you should have realized that the letters here are truncated and you may have noticed that Mr Genn chooses the authors and contents to suit the ongoing topic. Just because you are unable to understand what is going on does not mean that people are "sucking up" - itself a rather childish expression - if or especially some of the entries are deliberately provocative or even agreeable - the writers do not have any influence over what is printed and it is highly unlikely that Mr Genn would print only comments made in his own image! For my part, I do not need to copy anyone's syntax, and I am pretty sure that my colleagues writing here don't either. They want to make a point rather than demonstrate that they can write whole sentences à la Genn.

b) Michael: I had to smile when I read your comment. I once did a workshop where several artists gave courses. Fortunately (in retrospect) I didn't attend the Bob Ross one, but not because of the name - it was not announced as such. The teacher had taken the largest room and about 20 easels were spread out. About 20 identical canvases were propped up and about 20 participants got going, all mixing their greens, all tapping their brushes against their brush cleaning pot, all dabbing away at greenery and wielding genuine Bob Ross riggers to make branches. Gradually the room filled with trees. The subject was - need I mention it? - landscape. 20 ponds took shape, 20 miniature waterfalls and a host of other items usually visible in a Bob Ross landscape. Except for the skill in executing the paintings, they were all the same - from a distance it was really hard to tell the difference. I am sure that now 20 sitting-rooms in 20 abodes are decorated with these "original" paintings. For me, it's interesting to know that Bob Ross was also copying his own teacher. The method was handed down. It didn't bother the painters there that they were painting look-alikes. All that mattered was that they were doing it. The uplifting quality of achievement and success was what they were looking for (and finding).

Re the Tyranny of Reality and 'Hyperealism' as an art form, I'm reminded of the lyrics from Hotel California - They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast!

I've seen many examples of classes where everyone painted the same subjects. Once I seen a show where the class all set up booths and all of them had the same paintings in them. They were proud. And it's all part of learning anything, we've all done it in one form or other. I must admit that I find Robert's writing skills very inspiring, I wish I could put a sentence together as well. I'm finding that by reading these letters and responding to them has helped my writing skills a little bit. Shucks...I be a riter LOL Let's all get along.

The question that began this discussion referred to the definition of original art as required by art competitions. It was not a question concerning the benefits or history of copying.

The purpose of art competitions is to choose the best work from among the entries. Considerations such as composition, drawing skills, perspective, use of color, technique, and creative content come into play. Although copying work is valuable as a learning tool, the end product does not represent an artist's overall skill because the composition, colors, and even the basic idea for the painting did not come from the copier's own concept. It's no different from copying a book and calling it your own. The same copyright laws apply to art.

Art organizations to which I belong specify that art must be original, not done in a class, and not copied from published work. Some definitions of original: Preceding all others in time, first, not derived from something else, a work composed firsthand, not a copy. If one understands the English language, one should understand the meaning of original with no further explanation or debate required.

I think of original as being unique, fresh, not freshly copied, style or otherwise. I am constantly coming across works that are so like two favorite renown artists that I have to look and see who did them. That is not fresh, unique or original. Why be anything if not unique?

Could originality be how you interpret and fill in the lines no matter where the idea comes from ?

The Originality Gene: I guess it must just be me- but never have I ever copied anybody else's art. And as an abstract artist- I've never copied nature either. At a very early age I discovered the how-to section in my local library and taught myself the skills I needed to work in the medium I was interested in- fiber. And yes- I own a few reference books. A few years later I discovered Alexander Calder and- fascinated with his mobiles- taught myself how to build them. But knowing they'd always be Calder-associated only occasionally do I create one. And I never tried to focus on making them my main art form. In 1977 I had a work-related situation push me to create my first Best-In-Show award-winning art quilt in the very first juried exhibit I entered. Juried exhibits are one way many artists can gain recognition and create a reputation. But I'd immediately and intentionally abused the perceived tradition by altering the scale- (the medium allowed me to create larger work than I had before) and by using different materials and tools- and starting with a complex offset interlocking pattern of my own invention/design. 30+ years and several hundred pieces later my work is unique and unlike anyone else's. And since I continue to evolve- I intend on keeping it that way. If I were a teacher I'd be teaching only 2 things- and the first would be how to think for yourself no matter what the cost. Go to school and/or take classes/workshops in how to use your medium if necessary. But if you can't then use your varied techniques to create original work- why are you even bothering? Endless social sharing and its result- derivative work- are nothing to write home about. But if your originality gene was suppressed / repressed or destroyed by our fear-of-the-unknown-spark-of-creativity in our homogenized world- oh well- too bad for you. As a metaphysician and shaman- the only other thing I would be teaching is how to get fully connected up to the Energetic God Presence. That connection allows your art work to become a meditation and a spiritual practice. And once your work becomes your religion- no other God is necessary.

I was reading through the posts and wondering if anyone would comment on artists that project their photo references onto canvas or paper and then proceed to paint. It reminds me of the coloring books we used as children: filling in the color inside the lines. I feel it is skill and not really art. Would love to hear some comments on this practice.

Susan, I'm afraid you are treading in shark infested waters by suggesting that projecting isn't really art. There are many so-called artistes out there that will strongly protest that projecting is just peachy keen and to those I say "you are fooling yourself because the trained eye can tell when a painting or drawing has been projected".

To R. Joe Hutchison: Many thanks for your comment!!! To Faith Puleston: Gosh Faith- but you're awfully and instantly defensive! Me thinks maybe Joe got it right!

My drawing instructor at Cooper Union, Stefano Cusumano, frequently asked us to copy the drawings of the old masters. That was only half the assignment, though. After creating the best copy we could using the same materials, the same line quality, etc., we would then draw a similar subject from life, using the same materials and style. This was an amazingly effective way to internalize the drawing techniques of the masters, and develop our own eye as well.

What is original art? We are influenced subtly and not so subtly by everything we see. I recall having a teacher once, whom I asked a question of about how to deal with a certain issue in painting. She told me what she thought, then I noticed she painted a painting using the set-up I had asked about. The idea must have appealed to her. And as to style, well, you see it when there is a group of artists together. There is "cross-pollination" sometimes, of some little style or technique, and to me that is valid! I am sure that happened with the Impressionists, certainly. The pointillist thing kind of caught on in variations, with some, but they each made it their own.

Several years ago I was in a large art show with probably more than 30 artists. The organizers printed a catalog featuring one painting per artist. I worked as a greeting card illustrator for 10 years, and have seen many cards from many different companies used on the spec sheets I received, as reference material. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the show catalog and saw that someone had entered, apparently as an original, a copy of a Hallmark card featuring cute mice in Victorian costumes having tea. I can only imagine what Cennini would say to that.

I think in this case "original art only" may have a different or at least additional meaning, especially if Mr. Asselin means art festival when he says art show. No prints. And art made only by the artist who submitted it, there are a few unscrupulous types out there who pass buy/sell work as there own or have a lot of help from workers or family and pass that off as their own. And no copying. There's only one original but there are many definitions.

How can you avoid "copying" other people's subject matter? There is only so much subject matter in the world. If I paint a vase of roses I certainly am not the first and won't be the last.

One issue that your questioner may have been thinking about are giclees and prints. A co-op gallery in Maryland will not hang giclees on the wall - they are reserved to bins. Many juried shows in this area will not accept giclees, or even prints. Often, prints are welcome if hand-pulled, and of a limited nature. Even then, very few are actually seen gracing the walls of art venues. Only in commercial galleries, do giclees and prints hold enough esteem to be hung; or perhaps, it is just profit motivated, as commercial galleries need to be. Juried shows are not out to make money. Juried shows are meant to showcase recent, and "original" work by artists.

Living next door to our nation's capital, I find myself dreading the fact that I could be accused of copying others' paintings. Ottawa is a beautiful city, in winter and summer, yet I stay away from it because so many fine artists have "done" wonderful paintings.

Having been in several art clubs for many years we were told 'original art' meant, if it is a still life you did it on your own - not in a work shop, or a copy of any artist. If it is a landscape it was done from your own photos or from being there but not from copying a photographer's published work. Some artists don't have much respect for a photographer's work and feel copying is OK. It is if you keep the painting in your house.

We all learn from copying..the great masters did....but are we really copying??? I like to think that certain things, a photo, a picture in a magazine may be inspirational to some and though the example may be used as a guide, the art work is still defined by the artisis's own treatment of the subject matter. Skill, ability, feeling and emotion are all elements of originality that make each artist's work his very own.

Many beginners think nothing of using other people's images, photographs or art as a basis for their own. Yes, it is a time honoured tradition to learn by copying...we just aren't supposed to frame and sell it!

I think when you learn to paint in a new medium from an artist with a particular way of painting, or try to master the medium by copying from painters you admire, you can't help but pick up a bit of their style as you struggle along with your work. Once you have a little control over the "tools" of your trade you can paint off in all directions and hope to find your own style where you can settle for a while.

Jurors all too often are put in the awkward position of trying to judge whether elements of a piece, or perhaps the entire piece fall into the category of being plagiaristic. And sometimes, probably most times, it is impossible for them to know for sure. Definitions of plagiarism vary from juror to juror, also. For jurors that are full time painters (which they often are), we sometimes see pieces that we really have to wonder about the source material, and it shouldn't be our job to try to determine that. The idea of an "ombudsman" is brilliant. I like it.

The "Original Art Only" admonition refers to prints and reproductions, not to copies of other people's art. This has been the bane of digital artists on many listservs, since the "original" exists only within the computer, and any print on paper or other substrate is, by definition, a duplicate of that image. This is true even for works that are hand-painted stroke by stroke, using traditional techniques and a graphics tablet cum stylus. Programs like Corel Painter make this possible. One response is to try to find new names for such output, including "digital original print," "inkjet original," or "pigment print" for those using the newer, archival forms of ink.

On the subject of original art: I once painted from a photo out of a 1960's book with the intent never to sell it. Imagine my surprise when a painting from the same photo showed up on the front of a magazine last year! I would bet that that artist did not pay the photographer a red cent! Ah well, we live and learn. I believe in integrity.

Copies have a market share that originals can only dream of. If copies would stick to their market and not try to butt into the market of originals, we would all get along just fine.

Jack Atkinson, I feel your pain! From the many comments here on this page even, it is clear that we who produce digital art - from our own source material - and output (print) it with the best technology available, the giclee printer, get lumped in with reproductions. I have removed all reference to "giclee" from my site because as a friend of mine (a photographer) said 'a giclee is a cliche'. It's just gotten too much bad press. For the time being 'digital original fine art print' is the best I have come up with, but I'm still searching for a better label.

A general reply - 1) It has always been my understanding that when you copy a "master" painter, firstly, you never enter that piece into any show, secondly, if you show it, it was customary to inscribe the words "after Picasso" after your name. "After" being the operative word here. This tells those who are informed that A- you did it and B- it's a deliberate copy. This way no one is accused of obfuscation of the issue.
Also I have to confess to using a copier these days on my original pieces but with a difference. I draw my own images on paper first from my imagination (of single figures) and use the copier to place multiple people and animals proportionally into the scene on canvas again from my imagination. This prevents hours of erasure and trying to get the figures correct. It’s a time saver only. Never in my career have I copied an image from someone to create a painting. There will always be those with limited talent and ability who will utilize the scurrilous technique, but in the end they will fall by the wayside when they have to show what they are really made of. Copying in and of itself is a learning tool. If you identify the original painter, on the canvas and only use it as a learning tool, I don’t see a problem. Integrity should be written at the top of all our easels.

It is not a painting we are doing. What we are actually trying to do is to enter a higher state of conciousness and translate that into something that others can understand through our work. If that is the purpose of copying, fine, but if it is to improve technique, that is certainly a long road to take to find the essence of things, unless one is very deeply immersed in the copying process. Improving technique for the purpose of improving technique is the real sterility. It is the nature of being we are working to remember, not the thing itself.

Copying is a valuable way to learn, because it forces me to slow down and really SEE what I’m looking at. One of my favourite places is The Print Room of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, where one may view up-close a superb collection of master drawings (and copy them). Many museums allow this kind of access to artists and art students if you arrange it in advance. The Ashmolean drawings are matted and kept in archival boxes, and you wear white gloves to handle them. It’s an amazing experience to hold an exquisite Raphael or Durer drawing in your hands and realize this piece of paper is 500 years old. In order to copy a drawing, I must truly look, and look again.

My advise to artists is--take classes--humble yourselves and go back to the basics--look for teachers who understand the basics--composition -- the principles of design, color theory --- and learn what it takes to make a piece of art "good".....and if a person wants to paint representational things, buy a digital camera...it doesn't have to be expensive--after all, that's where composition takes over! A drawing lesson is also very beneficial!

As for copying, it is a great way to learn. As a student I copied Constable- his glorious clouds, landscapes and English countryside. As an adult, I visited Salisbury Cathedral to see it for myself, after copying his painting of it, and visited his originals– real originals– in London. I did an independent study semester in school, copying the old masters' paintings of animals. But no, those shouldn't be entered in shows, or sold even, without full disclosure.

This goes directly to the ethics of the professional, or at least the desiring professional, artist. Almost all artists spend some time copying fine artwork as a learning tool. I've observed that often the practice of teaching ‘from the inner self’ seems to perpetuate the sneaky copyist (they get good at disguising their plagiarizing); whereas the artists that have been encouraged to first develop their technical skills seem to be open to saying “this is a copy of …”, “this is ‘after…” and “this is from my own resources”. In fact the pride and confidence that comes from displaying the originality of the artwork is as important as the execution of the work. I do believe that as you learn the techniques you become more comfortable in developing and speaking with your own unique voice. Art is hard and learning to gather and use reference, whether in the field or from within is part of that difficult process and should be respected.

As a former art teacher, I did encourage copying from a favourite master for ONE session only, just to teach the student to observe.

Interesting subject about what's original art... Having paid my rent many a times copying master paintings while living in Italy... I know that even a copy of a Van Gogh done through me is a painting "dragged through my inner man" as it were. It left traces in me and I left traces of me within it.

This is a subject on which I have tried to get information through the years. I like painting portraits and faces. I very much enjoy taking a black and white photo in a magazine, well lit and cropped, (my backgroud as a film student and sister of two professional photographers) and make an oil painting of it, changing the background, etc. Some people go by the rule of not using more than 30% of previous work...I have read the Québec Copy Rights Law, which adds that it all depends on the use that one will make of the «reworked» art piece. Recently, I entered a juried show and called them to see if I could produce such a piece and there was no problem.

Copying masters is a good thing, a learning tool; you just don't put the work out there for others to see. Novice artists find it too tempting when others ooh and aah over the work that was copied!