'Creativity is not copying'

When does influence become copying? I agree that creativity is not copying. But I here so many designers claiming originality, then I see work by past influencial typographers/designers which they have obviousley copied a type treatment or illustrative style from.

what was the old dr bullshit: talent borrows, genius steals. or something.

Ken Garland recently told my course and I that copying work is fine as long as you do it better than the last guy :)

take a look at this guy Hes got your style straight out of the box: http://semipermanent.com/speaker_jonathan.html and getting recognised for it.

Emmulating styles is very viable if you are interested in being successful commercially. Not so much if you want to be respected as an artist. Everyone carries a history of influence with them, it's really impossible not to. The challenge is to add to that history, dialogue, what-have-you in an original and inspired way. If an aritsit/designer/musicain/writer/etc. feels the need to claim they are original, they most likely aren't.

As a student for architecture and design, I had to admit to myself that the one & only creative act I can perform, is to select between the incredible numerous influences and 'templates' in the world, stucked in my brain. For me, there is no other way to generate sth. new as by putting things together that weren't meant to, e.g. sampling.

the method of interpretation relating to the Art piece seems equally crucial here as the apparent external piece of Art itself.

ultimately the relationship with the piece of Artwork will be interpreted through our Language, be it the un-uttered semantics of emotions or uttered semantics of speech. the meanings that we employ to interpret a piece of Artwork as original, or copied are themselves handed down meanings which initially may appear copied, yet when appreciated within the inner subjective horizons of each individual, suddenly become immediately authentic and personalised.

the Hermeneutical process of Art intepretation therefore seems to demand an equally rigourous interpretation of the Artist alongside the Art-work.

For if two different pieces of Artwork can appeal to the same meaning, and likewise simultaneously two identical Artworks appealing to equally different meanings, the role of the interpreter alongside that of the Artist is crucial.

Im no student/professional or anything. But all that I create starts out as a rip off. Once im finished, it looks nothing like the original though. I almost set out to copy.

Anyway, design has always been a tool to me. Not something to take credit for. I want my records to stick out of a pile.

I'm one of those students that some speak of, almost at the end of my studies I have found that by emulating styles found throughout art history up to modern illustrators and designers, It is possible to find your own voice.

I don't mean copying the latest Jon Burgerman or Mcfaul work, or by using butterflies and birds because they're so in, but I find that in order to learn how to communicate ideas effectively you have to do a certain amount of borrowing... not that I do that anymore… maybe a bit.

x

In regards to Barno's comment:

"take a look at this guy Hes got your style straight out of the box: http://semipermanent.com/speaker_jonathan.html and getting recognised for it."

The work from this designer is hardly of any comparison to UE. Personally I think influences play a great part in the learning process of finding your own style, as they help you to practice enough to eventually be equipped with the adequate skills in which to execute your "found" style.

I think you can make houses out of flashdance.

It's really interesting how people already confine themselves when it comes to seeing another designer's work and automatically, they reference his/her work with someone else that maybe more prominent. I think it's fair to say you cannot reference Pyke's work with Jonathan Zawada who has been successful doing these illustrations for the music industry.

How I have come to understand the nature of Design is what Alex has said. How do you become a successful designer? How do you gain/reach that level where you can stand on your own two feet and be able to rely on yourself 80%-90% to do creative work? How can you reply just on yourself when you are involved or studying Design? Design is heavily dependent on life, culture, what you see and feel; whether you are watching a movie or seeing a street poster. People especially other designers are influencing you. Creativity is not copying but if you are lazy enough with the attitude you are not going to be found out, that's copying.

Something hard to grasp is the fact maybe when we do our own work, we try to manipulate what we have been inspired by which results in original work by ourselves and this is what Paul Rand said regarding his own work of manipulating the image. It's not as easy as black and white. The underlying point in regards to Design as a whole is that you don't go out and purposely copy another designer's piece of work but if you find that that someone has done good work, ask yourself, "Why is this good? Why do I really like it?" Incorporate that in your own work or ideas you start of with.

Can you say that a design student of 18 years old is copying an very established designer whose at a mature age? The latter designer has gain so much experience that the former designer has not achieved or grasped any concepts yet.

As said by Alex, it's a learning creative process and at times, difficult. On the contrary to what so many designers say that, " I don't have a style", everyone does. A style doesn't only mean some sort of original or unique approach but a style that gives you the skills enough to see you through is the method in which you approach your design, whether you sketch first, brainstorm, draw - how the hell are you going to be a successful designer without knowing what's going on or what Michael C. Place has contributed?

I once wrote an article called Art Vs. Design http://designforum.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=_getfullarticle&aid=1404639

I am an interactive producer, i see LOTS of work on and off line, most of it when broken down is the same. We all flow in the direction that the collective consciousness wants us to flow in and those who don't get additional attention, sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

If i am able to duplicate a masterpiece stroke for stroke am I not an artist?

A truly successful designer is one who creates an identity for himself based on his unique form of expression. The way they implement, the way they apply and the way they wag their tail.

A true artist is an artist beyond art or design. A successful artist knows how to deliver, how to make the client happy and how to make the world look.

Many of us have already used things from the public domain, maybe it is about time we put something back.

thanx to mass production and mass communication
everything looks similar, line between original and copy is not a concern.
u cant track down the original anymore, i guess it doesnt exist anymore.
only important thing is reaching to masses.

Originality & identity neatly adjoin in western, capitalist society. I don't believe it's any coincidence that capitalist systems are fuelled by our desire to be different yet also similar. Our consumer culture is itself a product of this. Capitalism nurtures competitive difference within a web of similarity. The relationship of difference & sameness - aligned & opposed - is intrinsically tied into our idea of originality; we wish to possess the original, desired by others, not just because we find pleasure in difference, but because we too wish to be desired also. We perpetuate a need for multiples of related originals: We desire what others desire, so we produce products to cater for this ever changing desire. Think of the objects one identity could need... perhaps it is better to remember that we are all copies ourselves & that the idea of the original is perhaps just an illusion. Similitude and difference are both inevitable so why not explore both of them with open minds?

Originality & identity neatly adjoin in western, capitalist society. I don't believe it's any coincidence that capitalist systems are fuelled by our desire to be different yet also similar. Our consumer culture is itself a product of this. Capitalism nurtures competitive difference within a web of similarity. The relationship of difference & sameness - aligned & opposed - is intrinsically tied into our idea of originality; we wish to possess the original, desired by others, not just because we find pleasure in difference, but because we too wish to be desired also. We perpetuate a need for multiples of related originals: We desire what others desire, so we produce products to cater for this ever changing desire. Think of the objects one identity could need... perhaps it is better to remember that we are all copies ourselves & that the idea of the original is perhaps just an illusion. Similitude and difference are both inevitable so why not explore both of them with open minds?

yeah i agree..the easiest example of this would be those sodas with propagandas like
"drink this and be different" (while half of the world is drinking it too ), same goes for nearly all brands who offers an unique id when you consume it.

‘We must accustom ourselves, to the idea that our mental & vocational equipment must be constantly refurbished’
Armin Hoffman copied from his book ‘Graphic Design Manual- Principles & Practice’

In a typical client led working environment dashing off a rapid piece of work is all-important, development & painstaking preparation are of dwindling significance. A strange recipe of reducing horizons & recycled visual cacophony ensues...Let us all have 2 days a week to leave the glowing screen, research & develop!!

‘There should be no separation between spontaneous (tsu~jan) work with an emotional tone & work directed by the intellect. Both are supplementary to each other & must be regarded as intimately connected. Discipline & freedom are thus to be seen as elements of equal weight,
each partaking of the other.’
Armin Hoffman copied from his book ‘Graphic Design Manual- Principles & Practice’

i like copying, but then i always liked tracing at school

people are too protective. once something is in the public domain it belongs to everybody. like women.

If copying means you are bad creative, does that mean that Hoxton is the baddest place on Earth?

What I meant was if 'creativity is not copying', then is Hoxton the least creative place on Earth?

I know what you guys are saying; I liked the movie Planet of the Apes with Mark Wahlberg then I find out those fuckers had 'copied' a movie starring Charlton Heston - I watched it and it was almost exactly the fucking same. unbelievable!

It's Mark Wahlberg's influence - he also starred in The Italian Job - same deal my friend. Us designer guys should find him and mood-board his arse into the weeds.

Artistic movements couldn't exist without copying. The trick is to get your copy out first, to as wide an audience as possible, really try and sink the original artist.... like in advertising.

we copy ourselves in circles