Comments on: Separated at Birth?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:56:31 +0000

>> Surely photos of tricycles are not off-limits because Eggleston took that photo decades ago.

Tricycle — wasn’t that Winogrand ? Heheh.

By: Josef

Josef — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:51:40 +0000

Thanks for your reply. I’m interested in the conversation, too!

By: Todd W.

Todd W. — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:50:54 +0000

At first glance I made the same comparison as you, but I don’t think we fully understand what a small world the delicious/digg/stumble/etc neighborhood is so I don’t think Sullivan’s work is as well know as it seems. The comparison is made stronger by the fact that you’ve taken a series of 3 images from a work that lines up a dozen images side by side and is much more formal about its presentation than what we’re seeing in RADAR.

Both this post and the Slate article on this topic last month, reminded me of the Geoff Dwyer book “The Ongoing Moment” which deals with the stream of iconography that carries from photographer to photographer as the art of photography developed. Rather than blaming similarities between photographs on plagarism, Dwyer describes a community of artists who are unified in their subject matter, mostly in the absence of any other connection.

By: Brian Ulrich

Brian Ulrich — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:56:55 +0000

I’m most upset because Jessica Craig Martin is a much better photographer than this…ugh

By: Jen Bekman

Jen Bekman — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:21:53 +0000

Sorry if I wasn’t clear… Maybe I should have added “coincidence” up there too. I didn’t mean to imply that Radar or Ms. Craig-Martin were guilty of any misdoings of any kind. If it was interpreted as so, apologies all around.

I never ever accused anyone of stealing, nor was that meant to be implied. I’m just, honestly, interested in the conversation and debate in the broadest of terms and thought that putting these two photos next to each other was a good illustration of it. (And I still think it is.)

Surely photos of tricycles are not off-limits because Eggleston took that photo decades ago. People who do take photos of tricycles do have an awful lot to live up to though, don’t you think?

I have no idea where the line is drawn. It’s quite possible, in fact perhaps highly likely, that J C-M was entirely unaware of Bill’s work when she shot the story. And as I said, the photos themselves are quite different. And I am probably in the minority - I don’t imagine that many people actually saw both that Radar spread and Bill’s stuff and had cause to draw the correlation between the two.

I’m not trying to start a war, and I’m certainly not accusing anyone of anything. I’m interested in the conversation. Honest.

By: Josef

Josef — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:58:45 +0000

“Immitation” “Flattery” or “Plagiarism” are the only explanations? Aside from the fact that three woman are walking through a subway turnstyle, those photos bear no resemblance. And if the first photo is as widely distributed as you say, don’t you think a photographer as big as JCM—nevermind the photo editors at the magazine who live and die on their reputations in the photo community—would think twice before “stealing”? Should have your coffee before you post.

By: Juan

Juan — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:50:09 +0000

My guess is that almost every inch of this planet has been photographed. And if people happen to tramp on those inches then that part of the planet has probably been photographed to death. If we judge photographic works purely on the location or content of the image and don’t consider the intent of the photographer then we are not holding photography to the same standards we hold other fine arts. Bill’s intent (http://www.3situations.com/BillSullivanWorks/writing.html) defines his work more than the location and should draw comparisons to Walker Evans’ Subway portraits more than an editorial photo of society tarts slumming it up on the R train.