Comments on: Only be sure always to call it please "research"

Only be sure always to call it please "research"

WPW — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:07:30 -0800

Nobody is saying anyone is ripping anybody off. They are just SIMILAR is all.

'The pairs of images in this "Similarities" set are similar visually in one way or another. They are presented without judgement as to the motives of their creators. The viewers of the pieces can form their own opinion(s) about what they see.' Some are accidents, some are homages, others are examples of appropriation and re-contextualisation. Via Design Observer, before anyone points out the similarity.

By: mazola

mazola — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:12:27 -0800

I so want this to be a double post.

By: Slack-a-gogo

Slack-a-gogo — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:12:50 -0800

Saul Bass on the Anatomy of a Murder/Clockers homage: "'The convention is when anyone steals something, they call it an homage.''

By: contessa

contessa — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:19:50 -0800

Rule 1: When copying previous design, remove shirts from females in the image and make their boobies bigger.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:20:33 -0800

Oh man. Concert posters aren't all composed of original artwork?! My world is crumbling! Some cool design throughout.

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:22:39 -0800

very interesting

By: djduckie

djduckie — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:24:17 -0800

787404 Represent! (not that i currently live in the '04 or could '04ord to (bad pun, on the spot)) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24140210@N05/2862790451/in/set-72157607329841191/

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:26:11 -0800

I like how every image in the set is tagged with 'plagiarism'. There's no such thing as homage, coincidence, appropriation, etc. It's all plagiarism.

By: mattdidthat

mattdidthat — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:27:02 -0800

I like how every image in the set is tagged with 'plagiarism'. There's no such thing as homage, coincidence, appropriation, etc. It's all plagiarism.

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:27:08 -0800

I am totally going to plagiarize that '04ord pun.

By: chinston

chinston — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:28:00 -0800

very interesting

By: WPW

WPW — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:32:03 -0800

Dirtdirt, the creator of the set does draw that distinction in his description; why he then spoils his non-judgmental attitude in the tags is beyond me.

By: not_on_display

not_on_display — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:49:29 -0800

Nobody is saying anyone is ripping anybody off. They are just SIMILAR is all. ...Only be sure always to call it please "research"

By: stoneweaver

stoneweaver — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:50:28 -0800

It would have been a much more interesting set with dates attached. As it is, I don't know enough about pop culture to form any sort of coherent narrative about these items. I wish I knew if they happened around the same time or at wildly different times.

By: graventy

graventy — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:56:06 -0800

The dates are all in the titles, for most of them.

By: stoneweaver

stoneweaver — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:57:07 -0800

So they are! Thank you for point that out to me! This just got much more interesting.

By: buriednexttoyou

buriednexttoyou — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:00:06 -0800

There's a guy I know who's earned the nickname "Xerox" for copying so many ideas. It's sad to see how widespread a practice this is.

By: bz

bz — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:07:16 -0800

"Dirtdirt, the creator of the set does draw that distinction in his description; why he then spoils his non-judgmental attitude in the tags is beyond me." A Freudian tag?

By: l33tpolicywonk

l33tpolicywonk — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:08:50 -0800

SIMILAR is one of the strangest photo collection I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their propaganda posters wedged in their Flickr sets, or why.

By: griphus

griphus — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:18:30 -0800

Bully's Separated at Birth is an awesome source for this w/r/t comics covers.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:24:15 -0800

This is fun and fascinating, WPW, thanks for posting it.

By: wreckingball

wreckingball — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:33:31 -0800

Enh. The pairings seem to be pretty evenly split between lazy concert posters and knowing appropriation, neither of which move me to anything like outrage (that Gettysburg Address cover is a touch problematic, though, IMO). I give "appropriation" as an assignment for my 1st-year BFA students. The guidelines I give them is that the appropriated source should either (a) be familiar to a reasonably informed audience, (b) of a type where the source could reasonably be deduced (the Soviet propaganda posters would be a reasonable example of this—I don't need to have seen the specific poster in question to be able to surmise that the source was a Soviet propaganda poster) or (c) specifically cited or otherwise acknowledged. Then the task is that the appropriation should somehow "create a new meaning for" the image (and Sherrie Levine did the "appropriation for appropriation's sake" thing, so one has to go farther than that). If those conditions are met, you're good to go, for all I'm concerned.

By: Atreides

Atreides — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:34:34 -0800

So the quick and cheap path to collecting artwork from either the Cold War or pre-World War Two is to rip concert posters off the sides of buildings. Sweet.

By: Toothless Willy

Toothless Willy — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:36:03 -0800

Like ODiV pointed out, isn't this normal for music posters? I know a lot of (local) musicians here in Nashville, and almost no one designs original artwork for posters. The effort isn't worth it when you're playing at dives across town every weekend, but you still need to catch people's attention. Find an image of a gorgeous old propaganda poster, slap your band's name over the text, and print on goldenrod paper. My friends and I try to Name That Source with all the flyers stapled on poles all over town. That new book with Joe Shuster's fetish art has served as a goldmine, it seems.

By: infini

infini — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:38:32 -0800

what about reading articles in the Economist that strangely echo the points made in an article from back in Feb in a design zine site? what does that fall under? inspiration? ;p derivation? even the intro starts off with the same academic quoted

By: ChurchHatesTucker

ChurchHatesTucker — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:42:20 -0800

People create things based upon what they've experienced. News at Eleven. This is exactly why I think copyright (monopoly) should be limited to twenty years, on the outside. Everyone should feel free to riff on what they grew up with. It's the only sane position.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:53:00 -0800

Holy cats, I have a site exactly like this one.

By: Solon and Thanks

Solon and Thanks — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:10:51 -0800

Have some of the people who are like "well, simply referencing or being similar isn't a crime! No big deal!" even looked at the link? Some of them are "riffs" or homage. But a lot of them are like this, which seems intellectually lazy and morally suspect to me. Especially when those posters tend to sell for $25+. At the very least, I'm glad somewhere on the internet is pointing this stuff out.

By: hippybear

hippybear — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:12:19 -0800

It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest It's no secret ambition bites the nails of success Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:14:50 -0800

I always though concert posters were supposed to be rip-offs of awesome graphic design you'd never seen because you don't read graphic design books all day unlike concert poster designers.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:18:10 -0800

Talent imitates, genius steals. El Vez has some pretty good album cover homages: El Vez Calling (original), Graciasland (original), and GI Ay, Ay! Blues (original).

By: drstupid

drstupid — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:19:59 -0800

WPW, the creator of the set does draw that distinction in his description; why he then spoils his non-judgmental attitude in the tags is beyond me. I think maybe this is reading too much into the tags. I think the descriptions are an accurate reading of the set creator's feelings, the tags are just a way for people on Flickr to find the images. Plagiarism might not be his preferred word to describe it but it would be a word to describe it and would help people find the set; that's probably it, really. The tags are for other people. This is a great set, thanks for posting it! I love this kind of thing (poster art, propaganda art and appropriated art.) Great stuff!

By: zvs

zvs — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:21:32 -0800

I used to make flyers for shows... the premise is pretty much always "blow up a familiar existing image and put band names on it". Not sure that's plagiarism per se, as with some of these (like the Little Richard poster).

By: komara

komara — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:31:08 -0800

If this kind of doubling of ideas (copying plagiarizing whatever) interests you, check out joelapompe.net which deals with advertisements instead of posters. [Warning: much of the site is in French, and on rare occasions there may be an ad considered vaguely NSFW]

By: MiltonRandKalman

MiltonRandKalman — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:04:40 -0800

Talent imitates, genius steals. No one is going to accuse this artist of ripping of Leonardo, some people make their entire living off it. If the piece or movement is well known enough that the proper citation is embedded in our cultural DNA, its a homage. But when you treat obscure art as your own personal clip art collection, you're worst than a thief, you're a hack. At least a thief can say he needed the money.

By: egypturnash

egypturnash — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:06:54 -0800

And here's Milton Glasner being extremely polite when asked about a certain well-known appropriateur...

By: jasonsmall

jasonsmall — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:26:10 -0800

Isn't this kind of a big problem with the internets, too? The lines here aren't always exactly clear.

By: Lucinda

Lucinda — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:46:58 -0800

Plagiarism might not be his preferred word to describe it but it would be a word to describe it and would help people find the set; that's probably it, really. (b_caruthers is the only person who has used "plagiarsim" as a tag.)

By: eatdonuts

eatdonuts — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:04:27 -0800

i'm surprised this hasn't been linked yet: you thought we wouldn't notice.

By: Danila

Danila — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:07:36 -0800

Lucinda, I think that's just because he misspelled "plagiarism".

By: dirtdirt

dirtdirt — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:36:25 -0800

He didn't misspell it - he transposed elements of it to create a derivative word.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:07:51 -0800

So creative types...aren't?

By: dhartung

dhartung — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:46:38 -0800

Isn't this kind of a big problem with the internets, too? This internet is almost an exact copy of the earlier one, too.

By: klarck

klarck — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:57:17 -0800

Isn't this kind of a big problem with the internets, too? The internet you're on now is a perfect copy of the other one, too.

By: fatbaq

fatbaq — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:18:10 -0800

oh awesome, great source for concert poster ideas. thanks!

By: ChurchHatesTucker

ChurchHatesTucker — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:17:39 -0800

But when you treat obscure art as your own personal clip art collection, you're worst than a thief, you're a hack. At least a thief can say he needed the money. I can understand being miffed that someone managed to make money where you didn't. But really, who's fault is that? You even had first-mover advantage. If Joe Blow can make money off your crap and you can't, you need to start taking notes from Joe Blow.

By: buriednexttoyou

buriednexttoyou — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:51:04 -0800

Thanks for the Glaser link, egypturnash. Everyone has their influences, but I believe it's not who you take it from, it's where you take it to. There's a difference between building on the shoulders of giants, and just ripping off some old propaganda posters.

By: sneebler

sneebler — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:15:01 -0800

I can understand being miffed that someone managed to make money where you didn't. Because money is the only arbiter of anything worthwhile.

By: ChurchHatesTucker

ChurchHatesTucker — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:31:55 -0800

Because money is the only arbiter of anything worthwhile. Not really sure where you're going with that. The basis of the discussion seems to assume as much, but I suspect we're in agreement (in our disagreement) there.