civilized ku # 924-25 ~ "rankly derivative" / standing on the shoulders of giants
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 09:51AM 
McDonald's Drive Thru / birches / posts ~ Wolfe Rd. - Albany, NY • click to embiggenA comment was left on yesterday's entry by that person with an odd obsession, AKA - "chuck" (no link supplied). It read:
Lee Friedlander did tulips in glass. Your effort is rankly derivative, despite the color vs. his B/W.
As always, even in the case of a comment from a nattering source such as "chuck", whenever one (or all of my pictures) is labeled as derivative, I am always curious, at times flattered, but rarely, if ever, insulted by such labeling. Let me explain ...
First and foremost, it should be understood that this entry is not a defense against "chuck"'s statement that my work is rankly derivative. But, that said, I view his comment as an opportunity to bring up the idea of "originality" or lack thereof in the making of pictures.
Without question, those picture makers who are informed about the medium's history and that of its noteworthy practitioners - the great, the near great, and the "merely" good - are keenly aware of the connections / influences / indebtedness they have with all that came before them. Very few of those practitioners have been so egomaniacal as to believe their work is totally original or created in a vacuum without outside influence. Most will readily admit their work is derived in part from their accumulated knowledge of the medium, its possibilities, and the work of its practitioners.
Those same practitioners are also well aware of the difference between being derivative and plagiarism. Work that is derivative is that which is derived from and built upon - most often with new insights and new twists 'n turns - something that came before. Hell, even one of the greatest scientific thinkers of all time, Issac Newton, stated ...
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, is simply the outright copying of something that came before. No new insights, no interesting twists 'n turns, just plain old fashioned appropriation / imitation of the work of another. Monkey see, monkey do.
If one were to look across the current playing field, picture making wise, with an informed eye, there is little doubt in my mind that near straight-line connections can be made from today's great, near great, and "merely" good picture makers directly back to earlier picture makers throughout the history of the medium right back to the origins of the medium itself. To deny that fact is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the depth and breadth of the medium and its practitioners.
All of that said, I do have one question (the aforementioned curiosity) for "chuck" - to which Lee Friedlander picture of tulips in glass are you referring?
I am not aware of any such picture. After reading your comment, I used the google to search for such a picture and the only thing I could come up was Friedlander's Stems work - a body of work of which I was not aware until I did this search. And, I might add, a body of work that is only tangentially, at best, related to my tulip pictures.
Reader Comments (9)
I've done tulips too, and what I know about Lee Friedlander you could write on the head of a pin. Mine are here: http://goo.gl/zzw6b and, while they're not as 'true' as Marks (I don't do true:-) I wonder if they're derivative too?
This post is really interesting. What I think about it: May be your readers like me who like to look at your pictures will take advantage of your vision.Thanks for that.
Christine
In all honesty, I believe that every photograph I've ever taken is derivative, but in each one of those photographs I can still see my little own kernels of truth anyway.
Actually, "derivative" is one of those words that makes my skin crawl whenver I hear it. It seems like a go-to, default form of criticism when someone can't think of anything better to say. Blech.
Maybe chuck didn't like your vicious slash at republicans.
Maybe 'chuck' could provide a link to his photos...
... if he has, that is.
Could be one of those trolls.
derivative?... I would say Mark's work is about as far from openly derivative as I can imagine a photographer getting. I would describe Mark's work as deeply personal and created fiercely independent of the viewer or anyone else for that matter....just two of the reasons I continue to find inspiration here.
A photo of the power transformer in the back of a McDonald's... an interesting choice for "real". The composition is good, but somehow the subject matter detracts from the goodness of the picture.
I notice that many of your pictures are taken under gray overcast (a reality in upstate New York I know). I am attracted to golden hour conditions when possible, and a bit of blue in the sky. Does this mean I am not capturing "real"?
@John Linn: some thoughts re your comment...
1. From a technical POV, an overcast sky reduces the DR of an outdoors scene, which can be easier to photograph than a high contrast scene.
[I get by using a compact camera in sunny South Australia, so high contrast is often an issue.]
2. Rain brings out the colour in an outdoor scene.
3. If upstate NY is often overcast, then photographing it thus reflects reality.
4. Thanks for putting the focus back on Mark's image rather than a mis-directed criticism.
5. What do you see as the "subject matter" of Mark's image? Both images show a thin veneer of trees + foliage in foreground, perhaps put there by the property owner in an attempt to obscure a carpark and a transformer (not to mention the strident white and red trimmed buildings).
Perhaps the "subject matter" is man's impact on the natural environment? Or perhaps Mark has a thing about transformers and steel ladders? ;-)