ArtBistro

So for those of us who delve into many facets of the creative forum, I propose a question. It has to do with the intertwining of material; lines from poems into songs and vice versa, pieces of sketches into grander schemes and the eventual amalgamation of many ideas as a final piece. My question is this, "does one every feel guilty of plagiarizing from themselves to effectively communicate their art?" I ask this because sometimes I feel this guilt when I use something previously created to complete a work, or aide it. I feel as if I'm sacrificing the originality of both the original idea, (although written on a bar napkin), as well as the impending work, (like I'm too lazy to come up with something new). But hey, what works, works. I justify it by considering that I'm breathing new life into a dormant concept. I'd love some great feedback on this topic. What do you think?

 Self plagiarism cannot exist! Life is a riff, it changes through time, but everything we believe are new experiences are merely variations on a theme... and we ourselves are that theme. There is no getting away from ourselves. So go ahead- don't be afraid to quote yourself- as long as it is embedded in a matrix of new experimentation.

It's quoting from outside sources, even the slightest reference that disturbs me more. In that poem "Ghostly Prose" I wrote that you liked, I referenced Edgar Allen Poe's famous Annabel Lee, and Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray. It was just the lightest wink to what should be by now reference material so mainstream as to be nearly public domain, but the fact I stooped to quoting extraneous sources bothered me a bit. However, I also quoted my earlier published poem of the nineties, "Ghosts Make Love in the Woods"- but I didn't consider that quote plagiarism. It was just recalling one of the many persons called "me"- and I'm the one person it's fair game to borrow from.

I'm always reworking old material. I'll dig up ideas I had as a child and start building on them. I believe the continuity thus engendered helps us to convince ourselves that we are indeed the same person that we were years ago- strange as that may seem. As we grow, we change so much we sometimes see ourselves as completely different individuals. But our "past lives" are us and the material is exploitable.

Surely, in works of art you may use "all the things you are" (quoting again, this time Kern and Hammerstein) and all the persons you once were, to get reacquainted with yourself again.

fiskworld says ...

So for those of us who delve into many facets of the creative forum, I propose a question. It has to do with the intertwining of material; lines from poems into songs and vice versa, pieces of sketches into grander schemes and the eventual amalgamation of many ideas as a final piece. My question is this, "does one every feel guilty of plagiarizing from themselves to effectively communicate their art?" I ask this because sometimes I feel this guilt when I use something previously created to complete a work, or aide it. I feel as if I'm sacrificing the originality of both the original idea, (although written on a bar napkin), as well as the impending work, (like I'm too lazy to come up with something new). But hey, what works, works. I justify it by considering that I'm breathing new life into a dormant concept. I'd love some great feedback on this topic. What do you think?

the first thing that popped to mind while reading this was that black and white dog that kept showing up in Dali's work

if it works... do it

 Then why did you bring it up as a problem for yourself in the first place and say you felt guilt? Are you just playing? Could you have put the question in a less obtuse way? Just curious.

I think if the idea is original to start with, then it becomes more of a collection than self-plagiarizing. You build off something you enjoyed doing the first time, and make it better or different, although with the same basic inspiration.

Consider some of the great artists--a lot of them paint the same thing over and over, and you're looking at multiple pieces of the same thing... however, they each have a unique perspective and "personality" which makes them different.

I have to agree with a few of the others when I say I don't think you can truly self-plagiarize. (You can, as you mentioned, be lazy in your art, though.)

gekko says ...

if it's a piece of you, it's just evolving, finding new life. if you don't evolve & grow, what's the point?

I agree 100% with gekko and a few others that had like comments!

Well put, J Duci. I just think that sometimes you have ideas stuck on your brain until you finally have to scrape them off.

 SonyaFe wrote:

Nothing is new under the sun ...it is just all rearranged.

 

This is absolutely correct. We breathe the same air, drink the same water, and are composed of the same molecules as the dinosaurs - only rearranged in our present matrix. This should give some pause to those who promote that incessant mantra of our cultural brainwashing: that everything must be innovative, avant-garde, that art must push the edge of the envelope, think outside the box, and generate constant novelty for novelty's sake.

Upon closer inspection the avant-garde turns out to be urban myth. All progress has been a remix of tradition. Time is not an arrow. Time is an endless circle. The renaissance was a return to past greatness, finding the lost aesthetic perfection of the ancients which had become debased, restoring knowledge that was lost. Progress was regress. Such reorientation requires cycular, non-linear thinking. One group of humans stepped up to the plate to save progress from defeat: the scientists! It was the scientists who really did create new things (like plastic). Sadly it seemed, all that we artists could add to his new technologies was window dressing.

This realization may tend to humble us. We artists like to promote ourselves as beacons of progress, of brave new worlds of shiny new things, but are we really nothing more than recyclers of old garbage? Is the shine upon our contributions only a thin veneer of varnish?

No!, Think of it this way: Maybe trash is treasure and recycling is just what this planet needs! What did technology do except bring our species close to the edge of extinction? We may yet be the champions after all! The artists and writers and musicians who embrace conservation of both nature and tradition, who rebuild with renewable and recycled materials the temple of immutable truth, are the ones to restore cultural balance and repair the crack- the tear in the fabric of time and space caused by the technological zealots of "progress!"

Let us join the never-ending song! Never be ashamed to rebuild and reform and reiterate what was done before, never let them tell you what you say is old fashioned, obsolete or trite: PICK ONE THING AND STICK TO IT. Be yourself forever true. Let no one tell you not to. Sign it then keep saying it until it gets through. Don't worry about originality. A student of Winslow Homer once asked him: "Master, in what style should I paint?" referring to the impressionist fad of their day. Homer told him: "Paint exactly what you see. Whatever else you have will come out anyway." That we all copy each other and the world we live in is inevitable, but this shouldn't trouble us, because no matter how hard we try to be alike, just like every tree, we are all irreducibly unique. 

So, say it loudly and proudly, artists and everyone:

"WHAT HAS BEEN WILL BE AGAIN

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WILL BE DONE AGAIN

THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN!" (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

I have two thoughts on this.

1. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

2. I never think of self- plagerism... only allowing the art to change and grow as we change and grow.