Artists enjoy calling their work “original.” For good reason too, as artists, we want to stand out and send an authentic message to the world. But, there are hardly any truly original ideas in the art world. Everything has been invented, reinvented, and re-reinvented over again. In this article, we will discuss how to create, reinvent, and stay away from copying.
Recently, I was thinking about how I get ideas for my work as a professional photographer. Some of my images can be traced back directly to what inspired them, while some others are more “unique.” The reason I can’t call any of my work unique is that all of it is simply an amalgamation of different influences that I saw before, different ideas that people threw at me, and different experiences. So, every image that I take is like a hodgepodge of a lot of previous ideas. All we do is combine various ideas together to make something out of it. Think of it like cooking the same dish. Even if the ingredients come from the same source, different chefs will cook the meal differently. If the recipe, ingredients, and everything bar the chef are the same, is the dish original? Yes. If we apply the same to photography, turns out no. Does that make my work fake, unoriginal, and a bad copy of someone else’s ideas?
What Is an Original Idea? Can It Theoretically Exist?
If we go by the principle that all ideas are a hodgepodge of other ideas, a natural question arises. Is it possible to trace back and find the original ideas that make up the hodgepodge? The first original thought must have been by the first man. Ever since, it has all been one big fake. This definition will take us exactly nowhere, and the debate will end right here. So, let’s stop hunting for an original idea, whatever it may mean. Just think how some fashion brands such as Balenciaga manage to produce two new couture collections each year. Fashion has mastered the art of showing old as new, and new as old. It’s a never-ending cycle. Fast fashion is that, but on steroids, as they are able to pump out a half-copied collection every two weeks. Nonetheless, the clothes look fresh, trendy, and in style. How can it then be that a seemingly copied idea is presented as an original, and nobody asks any questions? That is because their approach to originality is different from ours. Here is how.
The Smart Approach to Originality
The approach to originality that I suggest you take is the following: all ideas are a byproduct of other ideas. It is the intention that you have behind that idea that matters. If you take inspiration from Rodin’s work and see people in a similarly monumental way, there is meaning in the work and you are creating something authentic, something that is authentic and true to you. But, if your intention is to copy Rodin’s work because it made him a famous sculptor, your work will have very little meaning and authenticity.
The point I am trying to make about authenticity is that it doesn’t have to be authentic to anybody else but you. It really doesn't matter where you get the idea from, it only matters what you do with this idea. That’s why when creating mood boards, I don’t worry about images being from the same photographer or even photoshoot. These images are the only ideas that I combine, mix, and develop. If I would show you a mood board and then a final image, you’d say they are (in most cases) nothing alike. Sure, the key elements would be in there, but the image itself is different. That is because when I shoot, I immediately project my own opinions on composition, posing, lighting, and so on. As of now, a mood board is more of a communication tool between me and my team, rather than a guideline for what each image will look like. For example, I often see a single image, which then leads me to have a particular idea — usually, it is about styling. If you’re a landscape photographer, you may be fascinated by how someone manages to capture graphic detail in rock textures or blur everything but the subject. The idea may come from looking at an impressionist painting and taking an image that looks like that. There are really endless ways you can be inspired and create authentic work without copying anyone. After all, originality is about you, not about your viewer. To them, the image will certainly remind you of something, even if you never saw that something. That is because the viewer has a completely different world experience from you and probably defines originality in a different way.
Copy and Don't Worry, Sometimes
When I started to take pictures, I photographed everything I saw. But I realized quickly that I lacked some techniques and methods in my work. For example, I didn’t know how to make the water creamy smooth on landscape images, how to compose, or how to light images. The path to learning these techniques was copying. I took images I liked and set off to make an exact replica of the photo. It was not an easy task. Copying is quite difficult, if not impossible. I never managed to make an exact copy of what I was going for. Instead, I managed to make an approximate version, which looked acceptably ok. What I managed to learn through attempting to copy other artists’ work is the why behind the what. Not only did I realize that in order to get smooth water I need to use a long exposure, but I also realized when and how to use it effectively. The same can be applied to lighting. Sure, I tried to use setups for as much as I could, but when someone asked me to create the exact same effect on a portrait, I started to realize that one simply can’t use presets and get an approximate result. When it came to using the tools I had to create a result that I couldn’t, I literally spent 10-12 hours trying to get it perfectly right. By the end of the slog, I knew way more than I thought I could.
So, in a way, copying is not so much of an “idea-stealing” endeavor as it is about reverse-engineering something. On one hand, yes, you are taking someone's work and trying to make an exact copy, but on the other, you are learning extensively. As we saw, copying other people’s images to the pixel is impossible, but you can get quite close, and as a beginner, copying is very helpful. Eventually, you will be able to use the techniques you learned in your own work.
Closing Thoughts
So, after all, originality is an individual concept rather than a collective one. If we take out the obvious instances where one artist copied another artist to make money off the idea, we are left with a world of trillions of thoughts and ideas, each ready to inspire you to create something that is authentic to you, something that speaks to you. Even if you take pictures only because they “look beautiful”, they already mean something to you: they mean beauty.
.
Illya,
Thank you for the excellent article. I appreciate so much about this, especially the depth of thought involved, and the absence of a clickbait title. I have great respect for this level of content.
.
Thank you for reading, Tom!
Illya, I respect what you’re saying, but personally I disagree with many of your points. Many of my captures and ideas are 100% original, I guess that’s the difference between a ‘creative’ and a ‘button pusher’. The problem is, our industry isn’t regulated, so any ‘wanna-be’ photographer only needs to buy a camera and off they go, copying ideas and no thought process! Those of us that spend sleepless nights making notes, speaking to fellow professionals for weeks about development, doing test shoots, sourcing props and locations and then executing award winning photographs have absolutely no intention of copying anyone’s work and I feel that should be respected - Dave
I admire photographers such as yourself who work hard to push out that creative boat, though I would question any work being truly 100% original.
Thank you for being respectful, Dave! I guess that comes down to the definition of "original work" that we have. Mine is very different from yours, but neither is less or more valid.
About the idea of originality, if you leave space for accidents or errors, you can find something truly original. I find that happy accidents sometimes brings out something you've never seen before, or would never thought of yourself. I also find in my personal life that people that are free in their methodology are very creative and unique. So I think there's something in that idea of losing some control to open space for originality.
Good article, I appreciate your thoughts.
.
Good points you make, Carlos!
I would like you to explain what you mean when you say "free in their methodology". What do you mean by "free"? Could you provide a few examples so that I can get a more precise idea of exactly what this means to you?
Thanks!
.
Maybe the better word would be "looser" in their methodology. Does it make more sense?
.
Hmmmmmmm .......
By "looser" and "free", do you mean more open to doing things in different ways? Like not being tied to using the same techniques and methods time after time after time?
For example, perhaps using slow shutter for motion blur for one scenario, then using fast shutter to stop motion with a different subject at another time? Or getting down low in the dirt and very close with one subject in a certain situation, but maybe shooting from a standing height and more distance away from the subject in another situation?
Is that they type of thing you mean whey you say words such as "looser" and "free". If it isn't, I would love for you to give some specific examples of exactly what "looser" and "free" mean to you.
Thanks for the discussion!
.
Fair, I can give my example, I do mostly still life and product, I tend to control everything when creating my images, I follow my sketched ideas the closest I can, and the results are pretty much what I envisioned initially. That is a example of what Iliya mentioned, I am constrained to all my experiences and exposure to my surroundings and other work I've seen previously.
I've seen other people that do not have a defined image in their head, they just start placing elements on the set and mixing, and evaluate in real time as they shoot. I have to say that they get much more original images that I can say I haven't seen before, or don't feel like something else. That's what I mean by "looser" and "free".
And that's also why I argue that having space for mistakes brings something original, it detach one's own experience from one's creation, as a solution to Iliya's argument.
Edit: The first time I started thinking about this was when I found Jackson Pollock's work, where he has barely any control on the final result, against, for example, the Impressionists where the movement has a very defined intellectual basis.
.
I can see what you mean, especially as you come from a background of studio work with subjects that you can position as you please, and can shoot them from any angle and distance you want to.
For me, things are entirely different, because I shoot wild animals. I always have an image preconceived in my mind, but almost never get an opportunity to capture such an image, because I have no control over the subject itself. I am forced to be "loose" and "freer" about how I shoot, because most of the time, the subject is going to give me opportunities that I did not expect and could not plan for.
.
Agree with you there, the amount of control you have of your subject is much more limited, but I still feel it applies, somewhat. But still, doesn't negate any of the points here, I think, it just shows this is a spectrum kind of thing.
But that's exactly my point, the less control you have, the more potentially interesting images you can get, and yours may be the best example. You still control time of day/light, animal activity, seasons, etc and them capture what is presented to you, whatever it may be, sometimes the same old thing, sometimes awesome, would you agree?
.
Carlos,
I do agree with most of what you say about how the less control one has, the more interesting the images may become.
But I think that in some cases, the reverse is true. For instance, I may have some very creative ideas for a very unique image I would like to make. But chances are that my wild animal subjects will not cooperate enough for me to ever even try my ideas out.
But the way you shoot, with total control, if you have some really different creative ideas about how to shoot something, you will actually be able to put your ideas to work and try the different kinds of compositions and lighting and perspective that you have in mind. Hence, in some ways, having more control will actually permit you to exercise much more creativity.
.
That's what Iliya was saying, our creativity is always limited to our experience. So originality and uniqueness are also limited to that. You can find something very creative and original because you don't share the same experience as the other artist, but that doesn't mean it is something that never existed before.
I find this is the same when someone call another Genius, I find that true genius is very rare, people who can create something out of nothing, have a truly original idea (if you define Genius that way, of course). Usually new ideas come from a evolutionary and iterative process. I see a parallel in there to creativity and originality.
Tom, thanks for engaging with me on this, I very much like talking about these things, I'm very bored of gear talk :D
Good article with a very valid foundation. No one operates in a vacuum and few photographs and photographers can be said to be 100% original, especially in a well trod genre like portraiture that has a long visual past stretching back many hundreds of years. Using other past images or styles and reinterpreting them as a creative launch pad for your own work can still have an original outcome. As Illya says once you take a starting idea and put your own spin on it the work becomes yours despite the fact that you may have based some of the major elements of your images on Hopper and his work for example. Hopper no doubt had his own influences and they had theirs….and so on down through the ages. This may explain partly why post processing and all it entails has become an important part of photography as it allows for an additional stage where the photographer can really put their visual stamp or style onto their mages. This is why photography is hard and has little to do with camera bodies or magic lenses. It’s hard because it puts great demands on the creative abilities of the photographer and requires a great deal of work and commitment as pointed out by Dave Henshaw in his reply.
Its refreshing to read a piece on photography that makes no or little mention of gear but on the much more important and harder to write about area of photography, creative photographic thought.
Thank you for reading and commenting, Eric! I appreciate your insights and a link to Hopper. I saw some of his work during my first visit to the States as a kid. While the details didn't stick all that well, the aesthetic likely did, which is why you see those elements. Although it's been a while since I last looked at Hopper's work as a concious observer.
Ideas are influenced by some of the most unusual and peculiar things, childhood experiences and so on. It is really down to individual background.
Years ago I read a book by Ray Considine called "The Great Brain Robbery" which his premise is to steal as many (good) ideas as possible but then make them your own. As posted below, no one creates in a vacuum.Picasso didn't invent Cubism, he just took it to a place no one had before or since.
Thanks, Dennis! I agree.