Separated at Birth?

I've been thinking a lot about image appropriation, originality and what the appropriate parameters are for imitation, flattery, plagiarism or just plain poor judgment. It's been all the buzz in the photo-related blogosphere, and I've had lots and lots of back channel email correspondence on the topic too. It's a tiresome conversation in the sense that there is no real resolution to be had, it's bound to quickly devolve into one of those classic online slugfests that go from civil to invocations of rape and Nazism in no time flat. But, oh, here I go. I can't help it.

I was reading Socialite Rank yesterday. (Shut up. A girl is entitled to her guilty pleasures.) There was a post about the latest rebirth and certain (this time, really) relevancy of Radar. One of the features in the new issue is Socialites are Just Like Us. It manages to be offensive on many levels, on purpose I'm sure, but one photo from Jessica Craig-Martin's spread gave me an icky feeling beyond the overall unpalatable premise of socialites slumming it. It was this one:

Which bears an uncanny (albeit over-glammed up super flashy) resemblance to this work, by photographer Bill Sullivan, which was big in the blogosphere at the beginning of the year (it got Kottke'd! (and so on and so on)):

So where does this fall on the spectrum: Imitation? Flattery? Plagiarism? Have at it.

(I'm not yet caffeinated enough to link this post up, and while I intend to come back later with lots of interesting links, I can't promise anything. Anyone else who wants to take up the torch, by all means: do!)

Comments

[Joe]

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

Tricycle -- wasn't that Winogrand ? Heheh.

[Juan]

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.

[Josef]

"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.

[Jen Bekman]

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.

[Brian Ulrich]

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

[Todd W.]

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.

[Josef]

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