Busytown: A good read
353 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha's comment seems to me relevant here. Artists do not live in a vacuum. Things you've seen and read sit in your head and knock around with other things you've seen and read. Do writers really want to keep on second-guessing themselves, constantly worried that they may have read what they've just written somewhere long ago? That is something for writers to decide, not readers.
And I utterly reject that, I'll have to track down a link, but Philip Pullman's written quite movingly about how the language, imagery and even the cadences of the Book of Common Prayer and the King James Bible are part of his literary DNA. He couldn't ignore them even if he wanted to (and he doesn't), because you can respect them as masterworks of English prose without having a theist bone in your body.
But there is a meaningful distinction between an allusion and lifting the Book of Job and claiming it as your own work.
And as a cinemaphile, I don't think I'm the only person who liked Brian De Palma's Obsession a lot more when it was called Vertigo. Sorry, but when you're lifting whole set ups and sequences you're not paying a homage. You're a lazy fucking hack, who should actually use his not inconsiderable talent for something more demanding than ripping off Hitchcock. If that's your "process", so be it. Ditto for Gus van Sant and the wonder DP Christopher Doyle squandering their talents on a carbon copy of 'Psycho'
Here's the thing: Any artist is asking for something more precious than my money. They're also asking for my time and attention. And I don't have a lot of either to waste.
-
Well, the obvious thing to do is look at the distinction between autographic and allographic art; there's a clear interesting divide that is meaningful when talking about plagiarism.
Then let's see, there's the intentional element -- i.e. what is the art work, and if the art work isn't simply the physical object, then what does that mean for plagiarism?
There's also the obvious point of attribution, or (and here we overlap with intentionality) intended attribution. That's to say, the passing off question.
We also have the rather vital distinction between quotation, paraphrase, and plagiarism, which you don't deal with at all. In fact, your examples from painting aren't like plagiarism at all, and while analogies are deprecated, they look a lot more like the relationship between, dunno, Sayers & Wodehouse, or Homer, Virgil and Dante, than a plagiarist and his source.
(In other words, What Emma Said.)
Oh, and it isn't a matter of process (& process is of course a legitimate ground for criticism) it is a matter of result. Plagiarism is a quality of the finished work. You are using process to mean something radically different from what I think most people would take it to mean.
-
I'm perfectly willing to accept that my notion of plagiarism is 'naive and conceptually impoverished' if that were demonstrated rather than simply asserted. Make a case, use examples, argue your point. (Except for Joe – you keep trotting out the cliches and divining my unconscious motives. It's funny. And I get it: You're the village idiot.)
(Sigh). I couldn't, suck up the cliche, give a rat's about your 'unconscious motives'. As you say, attempting to expound your tedious dullard's charter for the creatively bankrupt wasn't something you initiated here, but there was no call for your stupidly unsubstantiated dumping on Peter Jackson. If the man's transgressions are somehow relevant to your case, you could have attempted to say why.
-
And as a cinemaphile, I don't think I'm the only person who liked Brian De Palma's Obsession a lot more when it was called Vertigo. Sorry, but when you're lifting whole set ups and sequences you're not paying a homage. You're a lazy fucking hack, who should actually use his not inconsiderable talent for something more demanding than ripping off Hitchcock.
This is a bit reductive, isn't it? There are bits of Vertigo in Basic Instinct, David Fincher's The Game, Chris Marker's La Jetee and Terry Gilliam's La Jetee remake 12 Monkeys. There are bits of The Searchers in Star Wars, Taxi Driver and Inglourious Basterds. There are Godard shots in Taxi Driver. There are Bresson shots and themes all through Paul Schrader -- especially American Gigolo. There are Wizard of Oz influences in everything from Star Wars to Wild at Heart. And so on and so on. It's how film works. And it's not like De Palma was trying to rip off something obscure or disguise his sources -- he was in a conversation with the most acclaimed film by the 20th century's best-known director.
-
Dish. Take. It's a both or neither situation.
The only way this makes sense to me is if you'd read the opposite of what I wrote. I thought I'd quite clearly opted for both.
Yeah, man. If I wanna paint something that looks exactly like a Goldie, nobody's going to have a problem with that.
There are numerous examples, but I'll settle for Elaine Sturtevant, whose 40-odd-year career has consisted entirely of copying other people's works. As this article mentions, this has not been without controversy. However, a quick glance at a list of recent exhibitions and literature shows general critical acceptance of her work.
But this is beside the point, as is Craig's Book of Job comment. Or is Ihimaera being accused of lifting his entire book from someone else now?
-
But that's not plagiarism, because she is clearly crediting sources (there is obviously an expectation that the viewer know she is being unoriginal.)
(See difference between `quotation' and `plagiarism'; originality is not the only important issue here.)
ETA: and also the art work as an intentional object, see Danto & Brillo boxes and such.
-
The only way this makes sense to me is if you'd read the opposite of what I wrote. I thought I'd quite clearly opted for both.
Gee, sorry David, I read your comment as a sarcastic criticism of people for abusing you. I guess you wrote those first three paragraphs as a celebration of our discourse.
You did, however, ignore my point about what plagiarism actually IS. Nobody here has a problem with, for instance, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, because Seth Grahame-Smith is not taking credit for Jane Austen's writing. That book doesn't pretend to be something it isn't. Do you get that, or would you prefer to keep pretending people are saying things they're clearly not?
-
First off, I'd like to point out that, had I wanted to join this discussion, I'd've posted here rather than on my blog. Unfortunately, some arsehole decided that for me by linking to my post. Rather than comment on the post using the comment function on the blog, as I believe is the done thing usually, you've seen fit to comment here.
No, your blog post was cited in the course of a discussion here.
Calling someone an "arsehole" because they linked to your blog post is beyond ridiculous. Not to mention rather precious, given the view of authorship expressed in the post itself.
-
Nonetheless, may I just interject from the sidelines for a moment? Great discussion you guys are having.
-
Pastiche. We loves it. When done well, it's a beautiful thing.
But that implies imitation. I'm think of something more like a cross between sampling and sub-editing -- of the original words.
Possibly this is because my idiosyncratic response to reading fiction is often to want to edit it.
-
Keir: What is it about 'the distinction between autographic and allographic art ... that is meaningful when talking about plagiarism'?
What does 'the intentional element ... mean for plagiarism'?
You're raising points, but not making an argument. I suspect you do have a good argument to make, and I'd like to hear it.
Likewise, what is the 'vital distinction between quotation, paraphrase, and plagiarism'?
I assume you mean passing off, but you don't actually say so. As for my painting examples, I thought the kneeling figure in Botticelli's c 1500 Adoration the clearest case. What makes it a quotation rather than plagiarism – that his contemporaries were meant to recognise it from another painting left unfinished 20 years before?
The same goes for Sturtevant. One of the interesting things about her work is that she started replicating other people's paintings before they were famous, at virtually the same time as the originals were made. If she hadn't included the original artists' name in the titles, would that have changed them from quotations into plagiarism? I'm not sure the distinction is as clear-cut as you make out.
But this too is beside the point. The question was, is it acceptable to do a wholesale copy of another's painting. The answer is yes.
Emma: I wasn't being sarcastic at all. The only snark was a little dig at Stephen for not letting me know he'd linked to me here, but the rest was straight up.
-
It's kind of simple, really. This is about taking credit for a skill of writing, when what one has actually demonstrated is the skill of cutting and pasting.
Actually, I'm not sure that it is. Almost anyone who writes historical fiction is going to cut and paste, tweak, and put it into the voice (or thoughts) of a character. And (presumably) credit the source. What Witi Ihimaera appears to have done is:
(1) cut and paste,
(2) tweak to a greater or lesser degree,
(3) put the words into the voice or thoughts of characters, including in some cases apparently the wrong ones,
(4) omit to credit all sources.So, surely the point is that Ihimaera has made a hash of historical novel-writing. He has demonstrated his limitations as a writer. The error has been compounded by sloppy bibliography-compiling and bad (sub-)editing. In the context, the issue of plagiarism is in fact a non-issue. A simple review could (and has) pointed out this this is a bad novel. Jolisa's Listener piece has provided proof. End of story?
All these cries of FOUL and overly-sentimental descriptions of blood running cold, scalp tingling, grief at the shock horror discovery of oh god say it's not true PLAGIARISM, and so on, are getting a bit overdone.
-
All these cries of FOUL and overly-sentimental descriptions of blood running cold, scalp tingling, "weeping" at the shock horror discovery of oh god say it's not true PLAGIARISM, and so on, are getting a bit overdone.
How about fucked off, angry and I'd rather eat shit that contribute a penny to Ihimaera's next royalty cheque. Unsentimental enough for you?
The point, my dear Mr. Clover, is that it's a shitty novel (according, that is, to Nicholas Reid) and contains plagiarised material. We don't actually know how much, because Jolisa eventually gave up.
IMO, Pengin and Auckland University apparently don't give a shit about pretty commonplace standards in their respective spheres, and that pisses me off to. Because I'm pretty damn sure any writer or academic (let alone student) whose profile isn't as high as Ihimaera's would be unceremoniously thrown under the nearest metaphorical bus.
Back on Planet Earth, let's throw a question out to Russell: If my next PAR piece contains substantial unattributed quotes from other people's work -- not homages or paraphrases or post-modern pastiches but raw, bleeding lifts -- what are my odds of getting fired? Seriously.
-
Almost anyone who writes historical fiction is going to cut and paste, tweak, and put it into the voice (or thoughts) of a character.
Actually, what Jolisa said on the radio was that (from memory, hope I'm not being misleading) is that she talked to other historical writers and they said no, what you do is do your reading, and then make sure those texts are off your desk before you start writing, specifically so you don't use the exact same words, but put them in your own.
-
In 1921, Francis Picabia exhibited two paintings at the Salon d'Automne. One of these, The hot eyes, was published on the front page of the paper Le matin next to an article accusing Picabia of plagiarism.
He wrote in response:
__Le matin__ took great pride in showing on their front page my painting from the Salon d'Automne, The hot eyes, printing a diagram below it of an air-turbine brake published in a scientific journal from 1920. 'So Picabia invented nothing: he copies!' I'm afraid so, he copies an engineer's working drawing instead of copying apples! ... The painter makes a choice, then imitates his choice, whose deformation constitutes Art; why not simply sign this choice instead of monkeying about in front of it?
Picabia's portrait of Cezanne is relevant here.
-
And just to be a totally unsentimental, cold blooded bitch about this, I do hope at least one of the plagiarised authors Ihimaera and Pengin are apparently getting in touch with say they don't give their permission to quote protected material in the novel.
As far as I'm aware, they couldn't legally force the book off the shelves but at least trying to shame the apparently shameless couldn't hurt...
-
she talked to other historical writers and they said no, what you do is do your reading, and then make sure those texts are off your desk before you start writing, specifically so you don't use the exact same words, but put them in your own.
.. And if you talked to the Master Plumber's Guild, or whatever the hell its called, they'd tell you that what they do is turn up, do the job, and leave. Under no circumstances would they concede that they might go through your underwear in the laundry hamper. My point of course is that OF COURSE the other historical writers say that. But why would anyone believe them? All but a few tradespeople cut corners. They just hope not to get caught.
-
But why would anyone believe them? All but a few tradespeople cut corners. They just hope not to get caught.
You think we need a Target episode on historical writers? Hidden cameras in the offices of Jenny Pattrick and Deborah Challinor?
-
The point, my dear Mr. Clover
And my response, my most darling Craig, is to point out that Ihimaera is a shitty writer, that the historical novel is mostly a worthless (sub-)genre, and to wonder why you would bother considering buying it in the first place.
If my next PAR piece contains substantial unattributed quotes from other people's work -- not homages or paraphrases or post-modern pastiches but raw, bleeding lifts -- what are my odds of getting fired?
What do you consider the greater crime? Quoting? Or not correctly attributing?
-
the historical novel is mostly a worthless (sub-)genre
Them's fightin' words, mister.
-
Calling someone an "arsehole" because they linked to your blog post is beyond ridiculous.
I'm always surprised when people post something on the internet and then discover they don't have absolute control over it. That would be the internet at work.
-
My argument is that you don't have a very good idea about what plagiarism actually is, and that you are failing to consider writing as a medium in-itself, as opposed to a failed version of painting.
I mean,
If she hadn't included the original artists' name in the titles, would that have changed them from quotations into plagiarism?
Really? Are you actually asking if attribution plays a role in the distinction between plagiarism and quotation?
(Also of course the art works were different in the same way that a Warhol Brillo box is different from a non-Warhol Brillo box, so you have to be rather careful with you comparisons, which you really are not.)
-
David Cauchi - 'south is top of the world' is an idea that has been around for aeons...among Polynesian peoples for an example.
I've long liked to think of the British Isles as The Antipodes.
But, realistically, what part of a tiny planet in a galaxy - somewhere- in this universe can be called 'top'?
-
Them's fightin' words, mister
Yes, I know. But everyone has their own tastes don't they. Did somebody (upthread) mention Barbara Kingsolver? *choke* *gag* *falls about laughing at own wit* *etc.*
-
Actually, what Jolisa said on the radio was that (from memory, hope I'm not being misleading) is that she talked to other historical writers and they said no, what you do is do your reading, and then make sure those texts are off your desk before you start writing, specifically so you don't use the exact same words, but put them in your own.
Excellent rendition, Emma - that's pretty much it. That's what the good ones who have a horror of inadvertently plagiarising other people's work do, anyway.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.