Week 1.

Notions of originality.

Considering the sheer amount of time the Human race has existed, and in that been creating, one could say that nothing created now, is entirely original. If you were to strive to make something original, though nothing identical to it may have been created before, it will still be made of a fusion of things that have come before it, as its creator will have taken influence, inspiration and ideas from that which surounds them. But is this necessarily something to be looked down upon, or seen as a lack of creativity? Not at all. For with each development of an idea, each slight change of a concept and each variation of a technique, the world, or more specifically to my interest, the art world, is kept fresh, vibrant, ever changing and forever relevant.

 For example, this Photograph, taken in 1869 by American photographer and surveyor Timothy H. O'Sullivan, is a beautiful Albumen print of the Uintah Mountains in Utah, taken whilst on a scientific mission to map the American West. While it has scientific use and value, it can also be appreciated as a piece of fine art, due to its serene beauty and the artists masterful use of the technique of thirds to make it appealing and balanced.

However, if one was to then look at this photograph taken in 1944, a striking similarity would be noticed. Would you then point at this newer artist and accuse him of plagiarism? Probably not. For the renowned photographer and lover of the American landscape, Ansel Adams may not have even been aware of the photograph taken 75 years before, as he stood and took this shot of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. And even if he had, would that give him any reason to take the photograph differently? For it is the differences that are already present that give this photograph its originality. The fact it is a gelatin silver print gives us a clearer, sharper imagine, making it more relevant and interesting to the people in the time in which it was created than the previous photograph would have been. The looming shadow is striking, adding interest to the picture, whereas in O'Sullivans work this would have been impractical, as he was trying to document, not create fine art. So this picture is another step ahead, towards photography being used for aesthetic rather than commercial purposes.

Many more examples of such similarity and yet progression could be found in every practise, which all practises must strive for to keep ahead. For example, while a new mobile phone may boast the brand new technology to turn off your oven from anywhere in the world, it will still make a phone call, just like one made 20 years ago.

Can recontextualised ideas Be contemporary?

So, we've deduced similar ideas are developed every day, for the sake of progression and originality. But what about when an artist takes an already existing piece of artwork , and deliberately reproduces it, perhaps in a different form or media, to give it a new meaning? This recontextualisation of work is common, and is often called 'paying homage to' an artist.

To show an example,

this Image was created by Matteo Bertolio for 'Tank Magazine' in 2004. Look familiar? It should do.

This is the famous screen print by the legendary pop artist Andy Warhol in 1962, but to understand why each picture is contemporary for its time, you must look into their context.

When Warhol broke the pop art scene, his work made a very bold move. He wished to bring art to the masses, and break away from the confines of the modern view of art, which was a high-brow society that believed only certain types of people could really appreciate it. His work involved people and objects the common people could understand and relate to, coca cola bottles, cans of soup and celebrities , and utilised a process that could bring the images to those masses affordably – the silk screen print.

So, Warhol was the most contemporary artist of his time, joining consumerism with art, where we find our contextual link to Bertolios piece.

Bertolio's time is one where art and consumerism live hand in hand. Whilst fine and expressive art are still important, a large portion of working artists function in the advertisement industry. So, the significance of an artist that one could say owes his career to a man who paved the way for his line of work to exist, paying homage to him by using his style in a commercial work itself, is one to be noticed. Bertolio is using the style which is widely recognised, imitating a silk screen print, with a more modern, digital method, so making the work attractive to the modern day consumer, whilst giving them the satisfaction of recognising the influence, whether they are particularly knowledgeable in the history of art or not and therefore making them take note of it, a very good marketing technique. The consumer will think about the piece, perhaps try and remember the name of he original artist, and this thinking process will stick the image in their mind, whereas they may look straight over an art reference they do not recognise.

So, while both of these images are modern and contemporary for their time, despite one being a recontextualisation of the other, because Warhols piece was more original and outlandish for his time, his works will always be the more famous and strongly remembered. Bertolios work is clever, but breaks no boundries. However, it does illustrate to us just how effectively a change of context can make an old piece of work relevant to modern day society.

And so in conclusion, I hope that next time you stand your children in front of the house in their new school uniforms, your friends line up and smile, or as a groom picks up their bride, and you lift your camera to your eye, please don't think to yourself 'has this been done before?', because it is the relevance, that makes an unoriginal piece, entirely special.