Glenn Brown and the great plagiarism debate
I'd like to think that the ideals of painting have developed since arts patronage. The development of more considered approaches: discussion rather than answers. As a painter myself, I constantly seek gratification in coming up with new ideas and purposes for art. But how? Can anything ever be original anymore?
Glenn Brown, a British painter, was nominated for the 2000 Turner Prize. After this warm, embracing hug from the more prominent and respected part of the art world, Brown was accused - by some - of plagiarism. Regardless of what plagiarism means based on dictionary definitions, surely the "presentation of new and original idea or product derived from an existing source" means something completely different when considering it in the development of modernist and post-modernist ideas of art - especially ideas of appropriation.
Brown's work not only had prior permission to be re-worked but also includes the original source and artist in the title. His process is incredibly methodical: finding a source, editing the source and repainting. The very idea that he chooses a source in the first place is determined by intrigue: can he rework this already purposed work of art and what is the new meaning. These are the discussions we should be involved in, not accusing a perfectly talented artist seeking new challenges in the perception, purpose/meaning of art and his credibility.