The adage says imitation is the highest form of flattery. In the art and design world, though, the struggle between originality and imitation isn’t quite so simple.
Nearly a decade ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art devoted an exhibition to it: “Rembrandt/Not Rembrandt” offered a look into Rembrandt originals versus forgeries. And, Blake Gopnik revived the topic in this week’s New York Times, arguing “In Praise of Art Forgeries.” Both the exhibit and Gopnik’s article speak to a question that’s as long-standing as it is enigmatic: if we can’t even tell the difference, is authorship really so important?
He looks grumpy. Maybe it’s because, once believed a Rembrandt, this painting was later declared an 18th-century British fake. (Source: Daily Beast)
Absolutely. Yes. In our offices, we have the gift of working with innovative products, designers, and thinkers every day. Repetition and re-mastery are inevitable—whether in official, licensed design remixes (Stay tuned for some amazing Flavor Paper offerings) or in on-trend product rollouts. In the same vein, we see firsthand that the final product never tells the whole story—it’s our duty to tell those tales. Rembrandt’s publicist, being long gone, doesn’t really have that chance any more, but the point remains: art has always been, and will continue to be, an expression of our humanity (whatever that means); the force that compels us to create is unique to the individual, and that renders the artist fundamental. That’s the delight of the genre; that’s why we continue to be fascinated by creatives and the creative process.
The moral? In art and design, what we see is—ironically—only part of the product. The work cannot be so easily dissociated from the creative. It’s the first question we ask about anything that crosses our desks at VP+C: What’s the story?
