Derivations redux

Here's another interesting artistic originality situation (I wrote an earlier posting on the subject). BoingBoing posted Lei Xue's porcelain beer cans. I commented on how similar the art looks to Charles Krafft's work and ended up taking part in the following discussion with J. Black:

#1 posted by Ethan , January 2, 2008 9:36 AM

Looks like Charles Krafft's work... or, if not, someone being very derivative of his art.

#3 posted by j.black , January 2, 2008 10:20 AM
Meh. I don't think it's right in saying Lie Xue's work is derivative of Krafft's. The medium might be similar, but the message I'm reading from them is totally different.

Krafft's use of Dutch Delft style porcelain paired with modern weaponry oozes suggestions of warfare in Europe as a timeless-yet-current situation which is both fragile and something that we keep with us as a cultural heirloom.

Lie Xue on the other hand, produces ultra iconic Ming (maybe a Kangxi hybrid!) presentation style porcelain. Traditionally used for, well, being presented to diplomats or other 'official' uses, Xue's assimilation of the techniques to produce crushed soda/beer cans is much more subversive than Krafft's in-your-face statement of fragile war. It's much more about what 'officials' do with gifts given to them in good will, or how we treat disposable/precious objects.

#4 posted by Ethan , January 2, 2008 10:42 AM Appropriation/influence/originality/etc. is certainly an issue that have to continually grapple with... we all run into situations where one of our works is evocative (perhaps overly evocative) of something someone else has done.

Generally I put myself into the position of the artist doing the more recent work (Lie Xue, in this case) and ask myself would I be comfortable with the similarity... in this case I wouldn't. Perhaps the contextual avenues these two artists are exploring are different, but the roads have ended up in the same place: works that are most striking in their ostranenie niftiness. Look at it this way, there's many, many different ways Lie Xue could explore the issues you mention--why choose one which is formally so similar to someone else's work (especially given that the work ends up being a visual pun)?

Here's a recent blog post I did on a similar situation (i.e., one work of art being, perhaps, overly similar to another).

#6 posted by j.black , January 2, 2008 1:21 PM
Ethan, I still think it is important to look at the styles of pottery which each artist is using to de-familiarise the respected physical objects themselves - because each style has it's own unique subtext. They're both blue glazes, certainly, but mock-Delft does not equal mock-Ming (Kangxi?) and vice versa. The significance of each glazes historical weight makes these two pieces extremely different - as does the violent object (weapondry) vs the pleasurable-sustinance object (refreshing drink vessel). Because of that I think it's wrong to say that Lie Xue's work is formally similar to Krafft's and thus derivative. They are simply artists using ceramics with traditional style glazes. If all works who use traditional ceramic techniques but with a ostranenie twist, does that mean Shary Boyle is derivative too?

#7 posted by Ethan , January 2, 2008 2:08 PM
Well, I think it's clear that Boyle visual style is distinct from Krafft, whereas Lie Xue's isn't.

You seem to be suggesting that the visual similarity doesn't matter much because the presumed conceptual intention is so very different. Again, if Lie Xue is working from such a different set of concepts, why not use a more original formal way of expressing it? If the formal manifestation is so unimportant, then why use a visual gimmick that is so closely associated with another artist? What you suggest as the conceptual underpinnings of Lie Xue's work seem much more profound than the resulting image (which, again, is a bit of a visual pun).

If I decided to create laptops, iPhones, & other bits of computer technology in ceramic with English willow patterns, would I be comfortable? I'm using a different ceramic pattern and it isn't weapons or drinking vessels and I'm sure I could explain why my concept is different. Again, perhaps you or others would feel differently, but I would think that it is a case of being too derivative and would scrap the idea (even if I made the artwork before being aware of Krafft).

It may seem like I'm advocating unbridled originality, but I generally think originality is over-rated... anything worth doing is worth doing more than once. If an idea is so fragile it loses its specialness upon being explored more than once, then it really is just a shallow novelty. I think Krafft's Delft work falls in this category--that's not to say it isn't worthwhile, just that it's limited in how often it can be repeated and still be interesting.