Posted by haroldHollingsworth at 2/14/08 11:44 p.m.

I must say thought that Billy Childish is looking rather Arshile of late...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/briandavidstevens/385451673/

Posted by haroldHollingsworth at 2/14/08 11:44 p.m.

though that is...

Posted by Ries at 2/15/08 2:01 p.m.

Why does it matter?

I seem to have missed that part.

My take on this is that the farther art gets away from craft, into pure idea, and the simpler those ideas are, the more common duplication of idea is.

Obviously, historically, a simple idea like, say, painting a vase of flowers on a table was used again and again by hundreds of artists. And what made the resultant artworks different was the hand of the artist is involved in painting.

Not so in "conceptual" works like these.

Basically, these pieces are the same ideas.
I know Jen goes to great lengths to prove they are different, but really, they are very similar.
Light in Grand Central.
Light in Larrimore.
Yes, one is more literal than the other, but the reason they look so similar is that the idea is so similar.
I infer no copying- I just think that when art is reduced to a very simple idea, like, say , the contents of a room, many people will have the same idea, and the more neutrally they execute it, the more similar it is.

this is not good or bad, it just is.
And I still dont see why it matters.

Execution is paramount in artwork.
Ideas are worth exactly zip, unless they are realized, and how they are realized is the difference between pieces.

Skill in realization used to be a hand/eye coordination thing- who could chisel stone the best, or who could paint the most realistic eyeball.

With art like this, skill is more about the selection of objects, the arrangement of objects, the hiring and supervision of fabricators.
But skill it is, nonetheless. And experience, knowledge of the work of others, and a good eye are all still needed.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/15/08 10:25 p.m.

A painters brushstroke was fairly consistent over time though and Lead Pencil Studio may be running into these problems due to the fluidity of their 'idea' based practice.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/2/08 7:45 p.m.

I just heard about this Lead Pencil controversy. As an artist in the studio you know that what you are doing has always been done before. As an artist in the world you know that what you are doing will be credited to the person with the biggest career no matter who did it first. As such, I am sure you could find examples in the future of people "copying" Lead Pencil's work they are doing now. If those future artists are more publicized, Lead Pencil will be again be accused of plagiarism (unless they get famous first). Whomever has the most power behind them is always the originator. A very wise curator, or a career artist, or a savvy dealer will tell you this in a moment of honesty. (I think I have heard it from all of those) You just have to accept this fact and live with it. If you do the work and then someone famous does it later, you had better give up showing that work, it does no good to go around lecturing on how you were the originator. (I have sat through and maybe even given those lectures) I do love it, though, that people care to grapple with this issue. Originality is part of what keeps the audience going. Excitement around art is rare enough and no matter what generates it we need more of it.