NOTE: I recently made a news article and the tags were all messed up, so I'm reposting it with the fixed version.





Monkey See Monkey Do. Monkey is Unoriginal.


Let me just say something a head of time before you start to question why I'm doing all of this on the account of seemingly one individual. This one individual is somewhat of an influential figure among the deviant art community, and because of such, there were and are numerous people who shamelessly agreed with the deviants views, and I see it as a common case of "the blind leading the blind." I have decided to take it upon myself to type all of this out because I am irritated by the subject, the ignorance, and the hypocracy. It is also because I feel that some things, just need to be said. Also I am asking you all to not type out "tl;dr" If you don't plan on reading, then don't bother commenting. That may seem a bit harsh, but to me that is just being respectful. Thank you.

+++Monkey See+++


Ok, so recently I came upon a specific deviation that had apparently brought forth much controversy. This specific work was submitted by an already very popular deviant, therefore, it was bound to get a lot of feedback. Even more so, because of the topic of said deviation, many people were either greatly enthused, or greatly unnerved. Those that disagreed were among the minority. The topic? Fan art. More specifically, "I'm original because I make my own characters, you are not, because all that you draw are other peoples characters."

The artist notes that they do not find anything particularly 'wrong' with 'fan art' except when it is basically all that someone draws.
The artist then goes on to claim that in his opinion, these particular individuals are unoriginal and "suck. A lot." On TOP of that, this artist states that these people cannot call themselves artists, because real artists 'invent' their own creations.

Then backs this up by saying: (direct quote)"...maybe you draw very well but that is call "skills" and that is a different thing, creativity means "to create" and that is when originality comes."

I'd like to point out that, originality does not originate from creation. All things original are created, but not all that is created is original.

But that in itself is not the only thing that is wrong with this particular artists "argument."
There are many ways that some attempt to justify their bigoted and offensive statements, here are some obvious examples of how this particular individual tried to do such (some of which is not just aimed at the above comments, but comments made later on to and about other people from the same artist):

1)"This statement probably doesn't apply to you."
2)"It's my opinion."
3)"No offense, but.."
4) Everyone agrees with me. Almost no one agrees with you. You're obviously wrong.

Number 1: There are many cases in which I see someone making an argument targeting a specific group, and then go on to list a multitude of exceptions. Or rather, they raise the bar SO high, that I sometimes wonder if the type of person they are speaking against even exists. If you're going to claim that you "see this everywhere" yet turn around and tell the hundreds of people that fit the bill that you 'weren't talking about them' then what and who exactly ARE you talking about? "Oh, I don't mean YOU I mean THOSE PEOPLE. It's always 'someone else'. If you're not ballsy enough to tell the people begging for acceptance with their "Well I'm kind of like what you described but I do this and this and this too!" that they are exactly what you are talking about, then don't bother bringing up the 'issue.' You made your bed, sleep in it. Quit trying to weasel your way out of controversy. You should have known from the start that not everyone was going to be pleased. Stick with your story and quit contradicting yourself. And if in FACT no one fits the description you gave of what you are seriously against, then I think you should see a doctor, because making up people and ideas to oppose doesn't seem very healthy.
I'd like to note that, the only people that the artist went out of his way to say that his beliefs applied to were those that claimed to heavily disagree with what he was saying. Some of these people didn't even draw fan art period.

Number 2: Some people back up their arguments and beliefs with facts and well thought out opinions. This is fine. Never is it ok to try to bend facts around, throw them in someone's face, and say "well its my opinion, deal with it." You can say that in your opinion, the sun is made out of ice. That doesn't make your opinion valid, what so ever. Sure, you have the right to think that all you want, but you shouldn't use "its my opinion" as a reason as to why you think that way. If you want people to take you seriously, then try doing some research before you start shoving your 'opinions' down the throats of others. Even MORE so, don't go about proclaiming your opinions and then telling others not to proclaim theirs. Quit expecting everyone to agree with you and bash those that don't. Why not actually take some time to consider the things others are saying to you instead of ignoring their points and instantly saying "lolflamers."

Number 3: Do NOT try to tell everyone that you don't intend to offend them, and then say something totally offensive. Doing such is a contradictory. Either you do or you don't. Pick one, and move on. I hate it when certain people try to make out like they're not trying to hurt anyones feelings, just to avoid flames from when they state things that are OBVIOUSLY intended to offend others. I don't think many people would take someone saying "No offense, but I think you are ugly as sin and I hope you die! =3," as not offensive.
This contradictory ties into number one, where the artist attempted to not offend everyone, and then went on to be blatantly offensive.

Number 4: This here is just blatant ignorance. Just because more people agree to something, doesn't make that specific idea or criticism to be factual. It's called 'bandwagon' and 'I don't want to be in the minority, so I'll just say "I AGREE ^___^ w/ U!" Majority 'rules' != Majority is 'correct'.

+++Monkey Do+++

Ok.On to the actual argument. Why I disagree with these statements:

"If you do fan art then you are not a true artist."
"If you create your own characters, you are definitely original."


Here are 4 words a long with their definitions that should be looked at, understood, and considered:

Original:

<sup>Original -
"Created, undertaken, or presented for the first time"

"Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual"

"Not copied, imitated, or translated; new; fresh; genuine; as, an original thought; an original process; the original text of Scripture." - Dictionary.com</sup>



Fan art:


^{"Fan art or fan art is artwork that is based on a character, costume, item, or story that was created by someone other than the artist. The term, while it can apply to art done by fans of characters from books, is usually used to refer to art derived from visual media such as comics, movies or video games." - Wikipedia}

Art

<sup>Art -
"Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

"The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

"Skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature." - Dictionary.com</sup>

Artist

<sup>Artist -
"A person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria."

"One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts."

"A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist." - Dictionary.com</sup>


From these definitions alone we can derive that:

Fan art is art.
Those who produce Fan art are artists.
Neither Fan art nor art is completely original.


Even with out the definitions, the word FAN ART IN ITSELF is proof enough that it is INDEED artwork. Otherwise, there wouldn't be ART in tht title. Yes, it's that simple.

+++Monkey is Unoriginal+++

EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING that we draw, is in SOME WAY copied. It's based of previous knowledge, previous ideas, previous images. All things that we have seen before. All things that we have known before. If you could not see you could not create. Period. How many Famous BLIND artists can you name? How many historically famous artists that have been blind.since.birth. can you come up with on the top of your head? I'm not talking about a guy that lost his eye sight. I'm talking a bout a guy that never could see. Ever.Can you come up with this person? I know I can't. I've googled it even.

Every artist references something at some point. We learn and grow with our art the same way we learn and grow as human beings. Through imitation. Language is imitation. Our actions are imitation. Art, is imitation.

Whether you paint your best friend, a tree, an apple, a dragon, or freaking Harry Potter. Its all based off something that you've seen before. Just because you come up with 'your own characters' doesn't make those drawings of said characters any more or less original than someone's fan art in the aspect of what it is. Why? because they are all based off of something else. Even if you draw something that doesn't exist, has never existed, and no one has ever thought of before, it is still a mixture of things that you have seen or heard of.

Can you not call a photographer an artist? One who's art is nothing but a replica of nature? What about writers? What about singers, actors, dancers, cooks?! It's all, in one way or another, imitiation. The definition of originality specifically states that that which is imitated is not original.

But then how, by these definitions, can anything be original? Good question.

Here comes my opinion:
Just as nothing can truly be perfect, nothing can truly be original either. I'd say that the word "original" is tossed around so frequently these days, just as well as the word 'love.' But here's the thing. Its not that "Either something is original or it is not" Because looking at something from that perspective is all in all, just seeing things in black and white.
I believe that its not what we draw that makes us original, but how we draw it. Its the style, the color, the placement, the movement, the effort, the meaning. Theres so many aspects to a peice of art that to just label it as one thing soley because of the subject is ignorant, and a blatant refusual to accept something for what it really, truly is.



Now.You can all (Whoever actually has bothered to read this) relax because this 'rant' of mine, is comming to the much awaited close. Please do not comment on my grammar or spelling if that is all that you are going to point out because it is irrelevant to the topic. Don't ask why I didn't mention the artist, it should be obvious that I'm not trying to personally attack him/her (cant remember the gender exactly...) I'm just using him/her as a major example in my argument. If you know who it is, I can't stop you from mentioning him/her. I'd just really prefer that you didn't. Thank you to all that has taken their time to read and consider everything that I have brought up. Feel free to say what you feel and criticize what you deem necessary of criticism.

Now as I leave you all and close, here are a few quotes that I find to be relevant:



"Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing." -Salvador Dali

"Good art is borrowed, Great art is stolen" - undetermined (If anyone is positive on the person that coined that phrase, I'll give you a if you tell me )