Rip-Off or Homage?

Recently, in an article on A Photo Editor, a lively discussion ensued when APE updated with something he called, Seen it Before vs Completely Original. It wasn't that APE's blogmeister, Rob Haggart, was sharing his personal views on the subject. Instead, he let quotes from two, separate, blog sources do his talking for him.

The second quote Haggart posted revealed that notable and celebrated photographer, Platon, had recently hooked up with The New Yorker as a staff photographer. That's fairly feakin' prestigious! (Not that, as a photographer, Platon is unaccustomed to prestige and accolades and all that good stuff.)

In APE's comment section, the first reader in the batter box mentioned that Platon was once an assistant to fashion and portrait uber-shooter, Richard Avedon. (How cool is that?)

A bit further down in the comments, someone wrote the following, referencing the comment about Platon making his bones at the feet of a true, photo icon like Avedon.

I see the first comment being a statement of exasperation on the accessibility of technique (Strobist, lighting seminar crowd) and inexpensive gear creating a vast number of rip off “artists” who figure out an innovators methods and use them with no consideration of what the (original or ripped off) image is communicating. They just “like the light” and don’t want to spend the time to come up with their own method of communicating through images. These are the same weekend (micro stock) warriors who are diminishing the quantity of “great” photography we see and replacing it with our current crowd sourced over saturated market. The result: Someone makes a great image. Another someone sees and dissects it. Two weeks later everybody with two strobes on Flickr has a set in that “new hot style”. So some give up, and stop looking for exceptional work, or stop taking the time to get upset with plagiarism.

As you've probably already guessed, that second commenter's words got me to thinking.

When people reverse-engineer a photo, regardless if it was shot by a celebrated pro or a weekend warrior, are they ripping off the source or are they paying homage to that shooter?

Popular site, Strobist, runs reverse-engineer-the-lighting posts often enough. Strobist is, essentially, a learning site mostly targeting hobbyists and, more specifically, those hobbyists wishing to learn how to light like pros but using small, inexpensive flashes and DIY gear and gadgets.

When people use those dissection and reverse-engineering skills they learn on sites like Strobist, or when they learn to shoot just like someone leading a workshop or seminar, are they then, later on, merely guilty of engaging in imitation is the sincerest form flattery violations or are they actually committing some form of artistic plagiarism? (i.e., when the images they produce look remarkably like the originals they've RE'd or that they shot in the (almost exact) style of a workshop instructor... sometimes with the same model, pose, etc.)

I'm just saying out loud here, folks. I don't really have the answer.

But here's what I do think: I think, as that guy who wrote that APE comment I quoted seems to think, those photographers whose goals are all about becoming great imitators, i.e., becoming just good enough to semi-convincingly imitate someone else's work, do not really pose threats to an original shooter's reputation, work, or his or her livelihood. And here's why: People can almost always spot the difference between an innovator's image and an imitator's image.

As that second commenter seemed to be saying, imitators are merely imitating and their work will almost always be lacking something. IMO, it won't just be lacking the ability to communicate with images, as the commenter mentioned, but it will be lacking something more important and something more ethereal. It will be lacking soul.

Personally, I believe people can spot soul in a photograph. (As well as a lack of it.) Viewers might not consciously see the soul in a photo but they see it nonetheless. They might laud the imitator's work for its lighting, its composition, its kick-ass post-processing, but they won't be moved by it. Soul is one of those things that can't be reverse-engineered. In fact, soul can't be engineered at all. It comes, magically, from the artist's and craftsman's own soul. You can convince yourself you've imitated the soul in another's work but there will always be some doubt nagging at you each time you look at your endeavor. Nope. You cannot RE soul. You cannot create it, leastwise, you cannot create soul in something that is not your own. Your own, that is, in most ways... in the important ways.

The pretty girl at the top is Jennifer from a couple of months ago. (As always, click to enlarge.) We were shooting in an impound garage: A dirty, greasy place where they store towed cars for varying reasons. I lit Jennifer with three lights: a main placed slightly camera-right and modified with a large Octodome plus two, highlighting, accent-lights, modified with small shoot-thrus, placed behind her, on either side of her, and pointed at her. Canon 5D, 28-135 IS USM, ISO 100, F/8 @ 1/60. (Slower than usual shutter to let a bit of the ambient seep in.)

P.S. As you may have noticed, I've slightly modified the blog's BG color from black to a dark grey. We'll see how that goes for a while.