Copycat | Week 2: Remeditation | Surfaces and Strategies | Lesson/Research |

Feature Image


Within my own project, am I explicitly referencing my inspiration and visual materials or purposely not acknowledging them?

In my project and in my own ideas I have lined up, I like to think of them as my own creations. But as research goes on through out the development of my project, I not only gain inspiration off others but will come across other photographers who have tried or completed similar ideas I have mapped out. If this and when this is the case, for example, in the pervious lesson I discovered the work of Toshiya Watatanbes – Thereafter, who in which we shared the same method of shooting, I will of course take note and reference wether it was done before me or was work that actually inspired an idea.

How do I think my images will be used once I have gone, and how could I control or shape that?

I have always been pretty controlling over the protection of my images at the fear of putting them at risk by someone else stealing them to use them as their own or to attempt to seal any value of the images when hoping to sell them. This ocd like behaviour of mine came to realisation when I had to use my Facebook page as the main website to host my images and Facebook is also the site which offers a clear as day download image button for any image…

Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 15.26.43

Therefor I would watermark my images, but I took this very seriously as I didn’t want the watermark to look boring and I wanted to use it as a way to reinforce my brand and get the name to become more memorable. Therefor I would try to be creative as I can with the watermark by matching up the colour with the colours from the actual image and by carefully placing it in a position of the image where I thought it looked best without being too distracting. I understand watermarks can make the viewer distracted from the actually image itself but I couldn’t give it up because of the download button and I felt I have to cover a good percentage of the images. I planned to sell them. If they were to even be downloaded, at least keep the credit as the watermark would be hard to remove due to the placement.


One of the pieces of feedback I received was in-fact the watermarks could be smaller to distract less from the images. I would reply with the same reasons as I described above. But looking back now, although I had my reasons, I think I was slightly too worried about the possibility of my work being stolen and the watermarks don’t have to be as in your face for every photo. For my new branding of photography I have since then simplified my watermark and as I gain more confidence I will gradually decrease the size of my watermarks throughout my practice…



Do I consider any of my work to be original?


“I didn’t make any new ones, I wanted to make use of the ones be already had” – John Sterzaker

I really enjoyed when John said that, as I agree that photography is oversaturated but it doesn’t seem as much of a bad thing when he puts it in that perspective.

The day I view my work as original is the day I complete days of research and cannot find anything to a similar method or editing style I have created. I believe originality is still out there, just very hard to obtain, it just needs to be discovered through trial and error and through the use of new equipment.

I see that some people believe their idea alone is a form of originality even when using parts of someone else work, such as Penelope Umbricos – 541,795 Suns

Screen Shot 2017-06-07 at 11.45.03.png

Whilst I see where Penelope is coming from, I wouldn’t exactly agree. There is a certain amount of work are done by the original photographers which is not being credited here. With respect, I would think that cropping several images and putting them together is a lot less work then actually going out to take images of the sun setting. Without the photographers, she would have no 541,795 Suns.

However I believe the works of Tom Butlers – Cabinet Cards to be much more respectable  as a lot more work goes into making the previous images a part of his own creation.


Each idea in my opinion becomes an original when it altered so far from the original image and is difficult to be replicated.

Would I agree that I am remixing images and ideas that I have previously encountered but can’t remember?

I guess that a lot of what we envision we have already seen in one way or another through many different forms of visual media at this current stage in history where we so many artistic ideas to view that have already been created. I even have to admit one of my shoots I will be conducting in my final project was inspired by a video game but I want to replicate it along with many of the other skills and methods I will investigate and acquire during the course. To be able to produce something new it is to see what can be mined from the resources you are viewing to find a way to improve what has already been made, bringing it into its own new category. But speaking from a photographic perspective, a photo will be taken that may look similar to another persons work, but it is the photographers individual, unique, personal actions in that moment in time which truly does make his or hers photo original as was it has been taken, as you can’t go back in time.


How transparent am I regarding the medium I use?

I am very transparent, if I am to be asked how a photo was made I will be happy to explain how the image was put together and my intentions for doing show. I believe the physical AND editing work that a photographer has done to achieve the final results should always be noted as I believe it gives the photographer and their photo a more meaningful impact, especially to the non-photographer who would be unwise to the process needed to achieve a decent photo.

Do I err towards immediacy or toward hypermediacy?

I would say I like to find a balance, in the sense that I want to push the boundaries of photography through editing by manipulating light to the point it will look like an alternate reality, but not using any computer graphics so it still remains a photo from the start to finish.

How explicit are my sources with my work?

Most of my sources are what comes from my head and the way I visualise and envision things. Thats the only way I can truthfully put it. If I am to find something that inspired me of course I would share that information. I wouldn’t feel right using someone else idea, unless I had honestly thought of it myself before coming across someone who has originally produced it.

Whilst on this topic, I discovered a great piece of work by Ray Collins.


oh wait, was it Dave Sandford…?


Or maybe it was BRABBU Design…? (who don’t even mention the photographer)


What is my original contribution to the conversation in which my images participate?

Opening and closing the shutter.


Again, I feel I could relate to this lesson a lot, I enjoyed viewing the work displayed in the presentation and thinking about how ones work can be used to be inspired, even reused, but with in regulations and should not be copied entirely. For example, whilst I must say, to view Thomas Ruffs – Jpegs is frustrating for me, as it reminds me of an image that hasn’t fully loaded yet, that is actually part of the interest of it, it has an impact on the brain. It has now inspired me to incorporate his idea into my images by using the pixelation to enhance someones role or current state of mood or situation in my images.


Thank you.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s