www.artsy.net: Creativity and copying appear to be polar opposites. Whereas creativity requires originality, free thinking, and new ideas, copying is just, well, copying. It seems unlikely then that there would be a link between replicating another artist’s work and being able to create new, novel work of your own. However, Kentaro Ishibashi and Takeshi Okada, an architect and a professor at the University of Tokyo in Japan respectively, have been researching this topic for several years, and they found that copying may help facilitate artistic creativity.
7 comments:
This article is very intriguing to me in many ways, mainly because I am not sure I wholly agree with it. I was gifted a book called “How To Steal Like An Artist” which had a similar perspective to the author of this article, where creativity is not always original but rather recreated art that brings a perspective to an old style. In the book, the thought was that everything is based off of something, so, by that standard, you are stealing some part of everything to create your art. I think a similar though worded differently thought is seen through this article in the way that an artist ideas can be copied to make creative work by not necessarily taking their art exactly but taking a similar style. Art is truly a process of copying the world from the artist’s perspective, and the matter of how “creative” it is is based on the eye of the beholder. This article is contradictory from many perspectives, but I do understand where it is coming from.
I find this study super interesting. Whenever I find myself struggling to draw something completely original I find myself flipping through my parents’ art books or just surfing pinterest for inspiration. I always felt a bit guilty for not always being able to come up with my own style or art. As an artist there is almost a feeling of obligation to always be completely original. I also gained a lot from taking art history courses in high school. I love studying other artist's works and appreciating their individual styles and techniques. After reading this article, I definitely can think back and recognize that some artists I admire influenced my development as being an artist. I think that there is too much pressure on artists to delve within themselves and come up with something new and unheard of, which is all good and an incredible development of one’s own style, yet you can’t just come up with a piece of work without some foundation of learning the basic techniques and learning from others.
One of the essential truths of the art world is that everything comes from some something. One key part of creating something is pulling bits of other things together in ways they have not been associated before. When reading this article, there is an element of something unexplained happening. Even though the article presents some initial solutions, I am a little confused about why copying another artist encouraged creativity. I think rather than of copying, it was understanding “that their art didn’t have to adhere to realism, and thus they produced more varied and interpretive works.” I would like to see this study done on a larger scale with a longer period of time. It’s hard to make a conclusion with such a small test group. That said, there is some merit to to the ideas because ultimately everything is reacting to something. I wonder is this method could teach someone to be more creative or help someone when they are stuck.
I always find it interesting when experiments are used to measure creativity. I think this article's discussion of the relationship between creativity and copying is completely true. All art comes from other art. Every single art movement has developed as a reaction to the one prior. This is because art is a reflection of our environment. It is impossible to produce art on this world without looking at the Renaissance and Impressionist paintings of the past. I have always been of the mind that the rights on art should not be restricted and have been very vocal about my frustration with Disney's lobbying to extend copy right laws. Though I do think that all artists should be given credit for there work, I feel that, after the work has exceeded its prime exposure, it can be released to the public to be collaborated upon. I found it interesting that the article not only discusses this layering of creativity but also talks about how copying another's work opens up the limitations of the mind. When I think about this, I find that it is true. We are often trapped with the confines of our society and mind so, by copying another painting and studying their work, we are able to see how boundaries are pushed and free our creativity.
While I found this article an interesting read, I think the title is a little misleading. There is a great distinction between “copying” and “drawing inspiration from”-- the second of which the artists in the study were doing. If anything, the test subjects were “copying” during the first part of the experiment by directly drawing the objects in front of them on the page. It’s almost impossible for me to start a creative project before doing research and gathering some form of inspiration from the internet, other pieces of artwork, or the outside environment. I often find myself looking to other artists for ideas, but basing one creative piece off another could hardly be called copying something exactly. This article reminds me of a book called “Steal Like an Artist” which explains this concept of “borrowing” more in-depth, and notes how “being pushed toward the familiar” as the article states can encourage creative growth.
Copying another person's work in order to bump up your creativity seems so oxymoronic, right? Ever since we have all been kids we've been taught that creativity is only something that is unique to you and your thoughts. The article reads: "The works created by the group that had copied other artists were rated as more creative than those created by the group that hadn’t copied. Participants who hadn’t copied the work of an artist produced more realistic drawings on the third day, while those that had copied created pieces that exhibited more experimentation. Notably, their works did not simply echo the work that was copied, but reflected their own personal style, suggesting that the act of copying led to broader sense of artistic freedom among participants." So weird. But in a kind of backwards way all this makes sense. By trying to recreate creativity we then become more creative.
I love this article. I understand how to some this may feel odd or contradictory, but has been a long time accepted teaching method for drawing and rendering. The act of examination and looking at what has been done before causes the mind to see things that could be and iterations from that point on. The key is to remember that this inst intended to make a profit from replicating others works, but that it is to train the mind. The connection made that creativity occurs when you encounter something is a key sticking point that should help to give this more weight. I was however disappointed with the lack of sample size in the study. This only serves to undermine the legitimacy of what is being done. I would like to see what would happen in a more massive, nation or worldwide, study.
Post a Comment