In one of my recent workshops, we were discussing series work and a word I’ve never before encountered came up: self-plagiarism. An artist in my class had submitted two paintings done from the same subject into a national juried show. Each painting evoked a different mood, and other than subject, they looked nothing like each other. After much deliberation, the board rejected both paintings, saying they were an example of self plagiarism.
I was confounded by the use of the term self-plagiarism concerning an artist’s work. Is there such a thing? Can there be such a thing? You don’t have to go very far in art history to see examples of artists who used the same subject over and over again when they were experimenting with different modes of seeing and expressing. Matisse, Bonnard, Degas, as well as many other artists have used recurring images in their work. Think about Monet’s Haystacks, Waterlillies, and the Rouen Cathedral series, to name just a few.
I’ve always believed that working from your own work is a great way to improve creativity. Creativity leads to more creative possibilities, and I’ve found that often it takes a while for the more creative ideas to start showing up. Frequently I have to get the more pedestrian version of my subject out of the way before the creative versions start showing up. In my mind, the second, third, or fourth versions do not invalidate the previous versions, and indeed the first version might be the “best” one in someone else’s estimation. I love working this way and even have a name for it, Recycled Images.
Here’s what Shaun Mc Niff says in his book Trust the Process: The recurring image is the person’s channel or river through which the creative stream flows constantly to new places. It is the place from where the rivers run. Picasso wasn’t worried about repeatedly painting minotaurs or the same faces on his figures. Yet beginning painters set themselves the task of inventing something completely new in each picture. A series of paintings expressing different aspects and moods of the same subject matter lets the process flow from one image to another. The familiar image regenerates itself with each new creation. All of the different starting points ultimately take us to the same wellspring which can never be exhausted. If we are able to open ourselves to a process of free play in our artistic expression, the same beginning will generate endless varieties in our compositions.
The two paintings above are from the series of 9 that I did using the same subject.
So, what do you think – is there such a thing as self-plagiarism concerning an artist and his work? Can there be such a thing?
Happy Painting!
The phrase “self plagiarism” is an oxymoron. The definition of plagiarism is “taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as your own”.
It is not possible to be yourself and someone else.
Sounds like the jurists were confused,
xoxo
Donna, what an interesting post today! It is bizarre and bewildering to be rejected for “self-plagiarism”. I agree with Vicki but think she is being to0 generous in her assessment of the juror. Thank you for the wonderful quote describing the benefit of working in a series. I shall share it with all of my students.
Well, now we have to make sure we don’t copy ourselves? What is the art world coming to? I suppose we toss out all Van Gogh’s sunflowers, Monet’s water lilies, etc…because they were, after all, just self-plagarism! I agree, the jurors were confused…and maybe a little bit uneducated in what their jobs were! If I am an artist who does a lot of self-portraits, I guess I’m really out of luck! ha ha
Oh my Donna! I agree with your view on “self plagiarism.” I drew from models for at least 10 years before I started to get creative with them. Sometimes the only way to rid ourselves of the confines of reality and the expectations of others is to paint one subject or composition until we are sick of it and screaming for more expression, or for more content, or more something of ourselves in the painting. When the composition and subject matter have been worked out, we can throw ourselves into exploring something else in the work. I will often paint a more realistic version of the subject while I explore its shapes and intricacies before I allow myself a more playful attempt. Sometimes I play first, and then go back to a more realistic version. Is not everything we paint somehow a little piece of ourselves? How can we plagiarize when we are just exploring different faucets of our self? Perhaps the lesson in this is when entering a juried show, to pick the one of those two paintings that is closest to your heart and only submit that one.
“Self-plagiarism?” – how absurd! Webster defines plagiarism as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” Unless the artist suffers from multiple personality disorder, I don’t know how plagiarism could occur. I hope this artist fought back. Thanks so much for sharing this story, Donna.
Absolutely not! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! We grow through re-addressing the same subject from time to time or by trying to present it in various ways. A rut, though, a rut we want to avoid! If copying oneself results in losing creativity, then it is a problem – but it is none of the juror’s business!
Hi Donna, Wow! Interesting post and comments. I can only echo the sentiment. I wonder if the jurors were creatively challenged, had bad hair days, or …..? Really perplexing.
Donna, I talked to my husband about this issue and his strong reaction at first surprised me, then I realized he was right. He said the first thing we would do if this happened to me was get the rejection with the accusation of self plagiarism in writing. Then seek legal advise. We would not allow an accusation of plagiarism, no matter how obviously ridiculous, to go unchallenged. Plagiarism is too big of an issue. An unchallenged accusation is too large of a defamation of character.
My husband said, think of the professors, journalists, politicians, who have lost their jobs and careers over plagiarism. I thought of the plagiarism case with AWS last year. Plagiarism is plagiarism; no one will ever remember the idiotic “self” part; they’ll remember the “p” word, though.
I hope your art considers taking steps to right the wrong that’s been done them; it’s too big of an issue! The Juror(s) and the show sponsors need to know what they’re talking about and the damage they can do when they wrongly accuse a person of plagiarism.
Thank you for posting this issue.
Hi Peggy,
Thanks for your well considered comments (and your husband’s!). It turns out that one of the artist’s paintings WAS accepted into the show – I was wrong in my post when I said that both submitted paintings were rejected. And, it wasn’t the juror/jury that made the self-plagiarism comment, it was the board. Even so, the issue of self-plagiarism is still there, and it is still a controversia/questionablel term when applied to an artist’s work. I don’t feel quite as strongly as you and your husband do that the artist should seek legal advice. I am more apt to put the comment into the category of unjust and unfair criticism.
I guess Van Gogh would be considered an outright criminal these days. He often copied his own paintings as closely as he could if he felt one would sell. He wanted to make sure there were multiple copies available to maximize sales potential. Of course, no two paintings were exactly alike. But, there are a number of original Van Gogh paintings floating around with multiple near-perfect copies that are also original Van Gogh’s.
I could understand if the board’s reasoning involved wanting to see more variety from individual artists. But, to invent the non-issue of “self-plagiarism” is ridiculous and smacks of nose-thumbing elitism and ignorance by people who should know better.