neonascent

Recently, Boingboing.com has been covering expositions of the similarities between Todd Goldman’s designs, and what is identified as the source of his “inspiration”. (Boingboing recent post) The examples show a striking resemblance that leave little doubt that Goldman copied aspects from the original.

While there is certainly a case to be made against unfairly profiting from someone else’s work, I am uncomfortable with the tone of the coverage. The poster was Boingboing’s Mark Frauenfelder; an illustrator and writer. I tend to make a rather evaluative distinction between “Art”, “Design”, and “Illustration”, though I realise that for most people the domains are growing less distinguishable. I do believe however that they operate with different agendas, and I identify part of my discomfort with the posts as a sense that these different agendas are being glossed over by indiscriminate use of the terms “artist”, and “designer/illustrator”.

Another point of discomfort for me is the language of these posts, that seemingly conflict with with the bulk of Boingboing’s anti-IP posts. For example, in the most recent post the similarity between works is used to categories Goldman’s work as “potentially stolen”. This is in contrast to criticism of such language by RIAA and MPAA that equates piracy to theft.

The following is text from an email to Mark Frauenfelder, which also mentions another post he made earlier in the day:

I’d like to comment on your ongoing coverage of Todd Goldman’s art, and more recently of a guy that “totally lifted” the style of John Kricfalusi. My general impression from Boingboing is that you are against IP protection that stifles innovation. Every release in Creative Commons is hailed, and every large institution attempting to protect a copyright it holds is criticised.

I think it is setting a dangerous precedent to attack artists for copying material from others. Granted, Todd Goldman is an illustrator who makes money off of these designs, but consider the argument against copyright lobbying of Disney i.e. that for every Disney work they are extending protection on, they are condemning “lost works” to limbo. By attacking a few commercially motivated instances of copying, you are placing yourself in a very contentious position of saying what is allowable in art. The John Kricfalusi rip-off might be highly derivative, but it is an original work. Contemporary art is a dialogue between previous works, and those that come after them; there is no such thing as a divinely inspired artwork that is atomic and totally original. Andy Warhol was strongly centred on mass-production of previously available images. One artist commented on artwork ownership by photographing paintings and signing them.

As a contemporary artist - though I’ve never consciously copied another’s work - it stings me to have this didactic voice casting out heavily derivative artwork *without even acknowledging that this a point of contention*. If you are against the laziness and exploitation of other peoples work for the sake of making money, then explicitly say it. Otherwise your position is ambiguous and it appears you are attacking the similarity of material itself. Also ambiguous is how this position is reconciled with the general attitude towards IP law, as stated above. I’d agree that in many instances the artist whose work is being used are not in a position to contemplate legal proceedings against the so-called “infringer”, and that there may be an unfair exploitation of the work to make money, but when the vast majority of legal copyright manoeuvres seem to be abusing the IP laws, and when these artworks are arguably original enough to guard against such law, it does present a confusion of your position.

What are your views regarding “derivative” or “copied” works? Contribute your thoughts in the comments.