If it is just drawing from things that already exist? — Darkneos

Can you identify Dora Maar from Picasso's portrait?

This is a painting (drawing) of a thing that already exists. Suppose that thing was a photo of Maar. Would Picasso's portrait be considered a copy then?

Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative? — Darkneos

Yes I think so. If it’s a copy of something then it doesn’t exist in its own right. Picasso’s Dora Maar portrait is not a copy of her face or head.

Can you think of something that doesn't exist (and never did) that isn't a derivative of something that exists in the human conscious (dragons, monsters, etc.) that people would want to look at?

Like, a random abstract painting of colors either coalescing together, spreading in all directions, or splatter art, etc. By this standard, the moment some artist first accidently spilled paint on his canvas makes any of the forms of art mentioned non-original. Doesn't it?

Art, specifically the viewing experience is much more than (forgive me for using this word but) "simple qualia." It is often a deep, philosophical, transporting, even transformational experience. Someone once said "the power of art is its ability to take something that no one thought was beautiful before and transfiguring it into something that is." Or something like that. Another said "it [art] brings affirmation in joy and consolation in sorrow.", essentially it has a redeeming quality. Take "American Gothic", it's just two people standing in front of a house. Or so it seems. Not quite willing to write out the meta/context but you could interpret/imagine a great more than what is displayed.

It's not a copy. Not even photorealist paintings are copies. They are two dimensional (pretty much) representations of one three dimensional things. You've selected the perspective on the thing and used all sorts of stylistic tricks to make it look like the thing, but only in a certain sense. You can't walk behind it, for example.

It's not a copy. — Coben

What’s a copy? How could we define if enough to say “it’s not a copy”?

It's not a copy. — Coben

If it is just drawing from things that already exist? Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being original or creative? — Darkneos

I think @Darkneos is just using this term loosely to separate a copy from an original work that, as I said, exists within itself. Call if representative if you want.

It's not a copy because it's an interpretation. A painter inevitably interprets a still life with their own style, regardless of how "realistic" their interpretation; even the degree to which their interpretation is realistic is a factor of their style. And style determines interpretation. Just off the top of my head, dunno if that made sense.

But I don’t know if I would call Monet’s “Haystacks” an interpretation so much as a study of light. On the other hand everything might be considered interpretive.
But what would the subject of a painting be that we called an original. Because whatever the style if we recognised the subject then we could say it’s interpretive, that the artist has treated the subject in a particular way.

I guess you could ask at what point a painting is no longer copying, representing or imitating something.

The perspective I'm coming from is that yes, everything is interpretive. This checks out in music; in the classical/jazz realm, someone performs someone else's piece, and they do it in such and such a way, and it's their "interpretation", and rightly described as so. In the pop realm, it's simply called a "cover". Even when an artist wants to "remain faithful" to the original, they still add their own style to the work, even if they're actively attempting to minimize this effect. And that's totally fine.

As far as an "original" painting, I don't find that to be particularly important (from this perspective I'm taking) but I guess you could look to non-representational art. But even that could be said to be "interpretive" of aspects of reality; logical structure in Mondrian, for instance. He was very philosophically preoccupied.

Is that a valid question? I don't understand the reason for asking it, or rather, it seems like a non sequitur to me.

Is that a valid question? . — Noble Dust

In relation to the OP? I think it’s a mistake to use creative and original as synonyms. The answer might be it’s creative but not original.

In typical fashion I've already lost sight of the OP. I agree that creative and original are not the same. I get the sense I'm maybe misinterpreting something or missing something obvious in what you're saying.

I think the answer to the OP question was always there.

Yes art can be called creative, but not necessarily original.

That's a succinct summary which I agree with.

However, judging by writing style, my guess is that the OP didn't consider the question of whether creative and original can be used interchangeably, and I would also hazard the guess that that wasn't an important distinction to them. It may be to us, but to the OP, the error might be simply corrected by editing the sentence to "Wouldn't that just be copying things then and not being [...] creative?"

That’s true too. Hence their question “If they’re just copying what’s in front of them are they being creative?”

Art doesn't like it when you call her by by name...

Sure she can, but I wouldn't advise doing so.

I wrote something out and then disagreed with myself. Touché.

Whoops thought you said what creative said. See above.

I wrote something out and then disagreed with myself. Touché. — Noble Dust

Very creative.

*blushes*

I’ve just being thinking; why do we use the word original? It seems to me to present the same problems as nothing, as in Why something rather than nothing?

Off the top of my head, in art, I think "original" tends to connote a work to which easy signifiers ("Monet-esque", "post-modern", etc) are not easily applied. But this doesn't mean that there are not precursors ("signifiers") to the work, it's just that they aren't obvious. The building blocks to Elvis are there, historically, for anyone to study, but at the time, they were not obvious, and Elvis "exploded" on the scene. He was "original". What does seem to exist is this cultural boiling point that gives the illusion of originality...

...But the question to me then is whether "original" is simply the word that describes what I just described, or whether, on the other hand, "original" is a lie, and that nothing is original; everything is a patchwork of what came before. It starts to feel semantic and unimportant to me, but I could be convinced otherwise.

You would think that something original could only happen once. From then on the artist or others is imitating the original. Abstract art was a way of breaking away from the representative, but once done everything that followed had to resemble abstract work otherwise it wasn’t abstract.

But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original.

I know we often talk about original but if it’s not something that flared up out of the ether or the mind of the artist fully formed then what is it?

An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think?

But assuming an artist has produced something original, are there not scribbles and sketches that trace the path lying around a studio?
And so the final painting is not really the original. — Brett

But the final painting is the original to the audience.

An Obsidian rock with an existing sharp edge is found by man. By chance he observes the effect of its sharp edge. It’s not like he thought that if he struck a rock it would create a sharp edge for cutting. That’s an intentional act he couldn’t have had until he was made aware of a sharp edge. That’s an original act don’t you think? — Brett

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing.

But the final painting is the original to the audience. — Noble Dust

So does that suggest that originality is a perception?

Sure but that's utilitarian originality rather than artistic, which is what we've been discussing. — Noble Dust

Then that means there are different kinds of original.

So does that suggest that originality is a perception? — Brett

It could. The artist knows all of their scraps and sketches too well; their work isn't original to them. But it can be to the audience, since they don't know. You can also play God and imagine all of this, like we're doing. Does doing this concretely define "original" for us from this perspective? When does our hypothetical perspective become concrete?

Then that means there are different kinds of original. — Brett

Sure, but again, I thought we were discussing the idea of original art.

Sure, but again, I thought we were discussing the idea of original art. — Noble Dust

True, but I need to know what is meant by original.

In regards to art specifically?

I think that your question is a good one, and it was one I have thought about a lot when making visual art.

Often, I have taken photographs in the street as a basis for creating drawings or paintings because it would just be too awkward to sit outside and sketch. However, when I have been doing the art, even though photography is an art form in its own right, I have not wanted to replicate the photos purely, but develop the art. In that sense, I have not wished to copy, and ideally go beyond realism.

Realist art if it is too exact can be too much about trying to copy reality. Actually, I am inspired by the whole superrealist perspective which shows everything in a more abundant and full way. I like to create pictures which go beyond the real and have used the pointillist technique. The building up in dots seems to be away of capturing energy and, even, the nature of the infinite.

All in all, I would say that art should not strive to merely replicate, but to add a hidden extra element.

This is true of fiction, and probably other forms of art, because if one reads a great novel, it is not just a depiction of the surface of life and conversation.In novels, it can be seen as the building up of a worlds in itself, such as those created by Tolstoy, Dickens and Joyce. This is particularly interesting in science fiction and fantasy writing, because the writers conjure up alternative universes for the reader to enter.