Photography is often considered a solitary endeavor, one that is experienced alone. But this is seldom the case. We are often engaging in collaborations whether we are aware of it or not.
In their article 'Photography Consists on Collaboration', Meiselas, Edwald and Azoulay, make the assumption that collaboration is the basis of the event of photography. They suggest that collaboration is its 'degree zero', and that 'photography always involves an encounter between several protagonists in which the photographer cannot claim an a priori monopoly on knowledge, authorship, ownership, and rights'. (Meiselas, Susan, Edwald, W. and Azoulay, A. 2016. 'Photography Consists on Collaboration'. Camera Obscura; Duke University Press)
This week's exercise was a collaboration in photography where we were all complicit in the collaboration. Collaboration can nevertheless exist on many levels. Working with archives, or materials created in the past is also a form of collaboration. Additionally, collaboration enhances the creative process and can offer new perspectives and interpretations. The semiotics can change in a collaboration and works can be re-contextualized. The movement of works between domains brings up issues of intertexuality which can lead to questions of authorship and appropriation.
“The magic of photography is that it is the object which does all the work. Photographers will never admit this and will argue that all the originality lies in their inspiration and their photographic interpretation of the world.”
(Jean Baudrillard [1998] ‘For illusion is not the opposite of reality’ in CAMPANY, 2003: 238)
Prince, Richard. Untitled (cowboy). 1989. Chromogenic print. 127 x 177.8cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Sherri Levine and Richard Prince are artists who test this notion to its limits. Both artists reproduce the work of other people often without much change from the original. The question here is where is the line drawn between the unethical or illegal appropriation of another artists work? Prince has been sued on numerous occasions for copyright infringement, as have Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons. (Prescott, Theodore. Issue 97. ‘Appropriation and Representation’. Image Journal. Ontario)
The issue of appropriation challenges and undermines concepts of originality and innovation. But even T.S. Eliot questioned originality in his quote from his 1921 book The Sacred Wood, where he suggests:
“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling, which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something, which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.”
Eliot, T.S. 1921. The Sacred Wood. London: Methuen
Levine, Sherrie. 1981. After Walker Evans 4. Silver Gelatin Print. 12.8 x 9.8 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Evans, Walker. 1936. Alabama Tenant Farmer Wife. Silver Gelatin Print. 20.9 x 14.4 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
It is clear that the sheer volume of images existing in today’s digital archives creates a multitude of opportunities for engaging in intertextual practices to create new bodies of work. While some of these works might be considered appropriation and plagiarism, and therefore subject to copyright infringement, the facts remain, the public domain of art continues to raise questions of originality and ownership. And artists will continue to be inspired by collaborations either in person or in historical contexts, and this inspiration might result in something looking very much like the work from which it was inspired.
Trees 1. Photo by Dawna Mueller
Our week 4 collaboration was to choose a topic, photograph it, put it together as a cohesive work and present it. I worked in a group of 6 and our chosen topic was 'Trees', firstly because even in our various degrees of Covid lockdown, we all have access to trees. But more importantly, it is because we all love trees. We have discovered that we all have relationships with the outdoors and trees, recognizing and appreciating the life and energy emanating from these majestic behemoths. Our discussion assisted us in a shared perspective of the what Barthes refers to as the ‘punctum’ – the emotional aspect. We agreed that we enjoy spending recreation time in forests, even some of us living amongst them, and that trees provide us with more than just oxygen and shelter. In mythologies, legends and novels, trees are considered representatives of life, power, wisdom and prosperity. Trees are often mythologized as elements that fuel life and existence. Trees pulse with energy that is measureable and anyone who has ever spent time in their presence undoubtedly notices feeling both energized and grounded simultaneously. This is clearly the punctum with which we created our work, and is also the domain of the viewer ultimately.
(Barthes, Roland. 1980. Camera Lucida. New York: Hill and Wang)
Trees II. Photo by Dawna Mueller
The studium is expressed by our collective interest to photograph trees – what does this photo show us? The exercise required discussion, planning and agreement. It was very much more an exercise in collaboration than photographing a subject and what it enhanced for me was the creativity that arises from a collaborative effort. How does this shape my photographic practice? More than affecting the content, I would conclude it required a certain amount of organization to meet the deadlines and collective expectations. It required an expediency that might not have existed in a solitary project. Overall, I enjoy creative collaborations and am used to it in my photographic practice. I enjoy the exchange of ideas and sharing of creative concepts. The issues addressed in this week’s topic of authorship and collaboration raise many questions about appropriation and plagiarism and I don’t feel comfortable utilizing either in my work. I acknowledge that I am inspired by many, however, I often make concerted efforts to not go in a certain direction for fear of working too closely in the footsteps of another. The discernment between collaboration, appropriation and plagiarism is a fine one, but whereas the former can lead to a collective work with independent ideas, the later for me are essentially the same when looking at it from the perspective of copyright infringement.
Trees III. Photo by Dawna Mueller