Artistic Influences/Similiarities

I see a HEAVY Soto influence in Jason's work....in fact I've seen a few artists that seems to draw from Soto's work....I'm not sure I like this - I'm not sure I don't - I"m sure to find your own style a lot of "copying" must be done until you find your own strokes....like HST pounding out Hemmingway novels word for word on the typewriter to get a feel for it....( but, HST didn't publish those retyped manuscripts - what's the point?)
I get it but, I guess, I'm never going to buy an artist's work if it looks too much like another artist's work - If work is done in a similar fashion in order to evoke thought ... commentary..and comparison that's one thing and I'm all for it - the play off one work and another work by different artists - but, I feel it is the responsibility of galleries to show artists who have developed their own style ... not artists that are on their way to developing their own style...

p.s. I don't mean to bash Jason at all - I mean him no harm - I'm just using him as an example...I've seen this a lot recently and it's really starting to irk me - Tin - for example - the influences are obvious - now both Jason and Tin have obvious talent but, I'd just like to see that talent shown without the obvious influences overshadowing their own works.

If you've been collecting in this genre long enough, you'll know that similarities in style or approach are a common phenomenon. Generally speaking, "true originality" is nearly impossible to achieve. There is just too much "stuff" in our collective consciousness to not be influenced in one way or another by someone else. Sure some artists come closer than others to blocking out (or disguising) those influences and achieving that ideal of originality, if that's the point...and I do agree that it is part of the point, and there's something amazing about seeing a painting that is unlike anything you've ever seen before (ie. Josh Keyes for me).

But considering art is such an emotionally driven craft, with newer artists invariably being inspired by older artists, and to an even greater degree being inspired in a very tangible way by artists that operate in their same artistic arena, there is bound to be some crossover. Everything is derivative of something before it, just to varying extents. Some influences are subtle, while others are overt. Some are intentional (ie. as homage), and some, of course, are unintentional. And even more can only be viewed from a certain vantage and through a certain lens, so some collectors might not see the influence at all, while others can't escape it. Again, it's just the nature of the artistic beast, and undoubtedly a product of the artist's subconscious evoking themes that were important in their own previous artistic studies and viewing experiences. You see it all artistic avenues; writing, music, painting, etc, etc, etc...and of course, this "lowbrow" scene is far from immune to it.

With respect to Jason Limon, I don't personally think his work "that" strongly mimics Soto's. Sure there are some similarities; figurative characters set upon abstracted, layered canvases with embedded script framing the theme of the piece. Hmm...Ok, that sounds a little closer to Soto's work than I had wished. Ha. Just kidding, was trying to illustrate that similar approaches can be taken and can produce completely different looking work. And is there anything wrong with taking a similar approach? But in all seriousness, I really don't think Limon's work that closely resembles Soto's, and I think he's well on his way to finding his own artistic narrative. To me, his paintings are way too "soft" and cute to be directly linked to Soto's "harder", more socially and environmentally meaningful work. But I certainly won't deny some minor influence, and also don't necessarily think it's a bad thing.

Ultimately, I don't know what I'm talking about so definitely don't listen to me. Interesting, nonetheless.

hmm...Is it the galleries responsibility? I don't know. Certainly, in part...as they don't want to waste the wall space on an artist the looks too much like another artist and won't sell. Ultimately, I think the onus lies on the collector (insert "market") to draw the distinction whether an artist is authentic and worthy of being bought. It's the galleries job to provide a venue for viewing artwork, and for potentially buying said work if there is enough interest. They're going to do their best to find artists capable of satisfying their clientele. But it's the collectors duty to filter out the artists that aren't capable of competing at that the gallery level, if for example there is too strong a resemblance to an existing artists work. If no one buys the work, certainly the gallery won't show them again...something which doesn't seem to be the case with Jason Limon. I imagine it's very tough for galleries sometimes during those periods of exhibits where they're not showing premier, veteran artists, who's work will immediately sell, and instead take a gamble on unknown artists. So I think that just by exposing a new artist to the scene, in spite of some similarities between other artists, the gallery has accomplished their end of the bargain. It's the collectors job to "weed" out the generic and the redundant.

At the very least, piggybacking on the Limon example (as I really don't think he looks that much like Soto, and am surprised two members already do), you've gotta admit that his custom cut and constructed cavnas panels, in tandem with the custom cut matte boards, is a nice touch and highly unique.

the influences/similarites debate never ends... before i got into the art scene i was involved with cars and they just loved this... saying this car company is copying this other one because they had 4 headlights first... this one was the first to have mirrors with turn signals on them... etc... some arguments were valid but much of the time it was a bit of a stretch... and while "copying" is viewed negatively... it shouldn't always be. many times the first to start something isn't the one that has the best product (friendster ---> myspace ---> facebook)

there are always going to be similarities. in the end i feel that in most cases if we really compare... there are really not that many similarities or not enough to even matter. seems like its just too easy or maybe human nature to pick one or a few small similarities and base our judgement on that.. if the similarities really matter that much, the art isn't going to be going anywhere and we wont see it around for long

Jeff has talked about this issue:
www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=584&Itemid=63

And, lastly, I’m dealing with artists who are imitating mine and other’s work. They say imitation is a form of flattery but when people are doing stuff very similar in style to what you’ve been doing for years and they’re selling it, it’s more of a slap on the face. I am not naming any names but I’ve seen alot of imitation the past couple of years and it’s getting worse. The good thing is that for some reason people tend to copy the stuff I was doing right out of school- sun rays (hehe which I copied from Alex Gross), robots, boxes with wings, etc. It still sucks. I don’t know if the artists are to blame or the galleries that show them. Or it could be the buyers who are supporting this. So here’s some advice for everyone...

Artists- if you find yourself with a lack of ideas or have trouble finding your style, DO NOT take the easy path. Don’t look at who’s successful and steal their ideas. Do not copy them. Do not imitate them. This might help you sell some paintings, you may even sell out a show or two. But in the long run it will come back to bite you in the ass. You’ll be but a flash in the pan. A one hit wonder. If you are a serious artist and you make art because you have to, it’s in your soul, it’s in your heart, you will eventually find your own style. I’m not saying it will be easy. It takes sacrifice, dedication, and experimentation. And once you think you found your style, throw it all away. Because your shit will get stagnant if you don’t keep evolving. The artists who are copying will not be around in a couple years. Watch. *Note- it’s alright to be a little derivative right out of school, no one can help that. But if you’re out of school for a while and selling your paintings and deep down you know it’s not totally original, then it’s time to refocus and get onto a better path.

And..

Galleries- You have a responsibility to show original work. When you show work that is overly derivative, it cheapens your gallery and the entire “scene”. This scene is small. Really small actually. If you are showing work in this genre you should have at least an understanding of who the artists are, what their work looks like and where they have shown. You have to have the backbone to be able to tell artists to come back in a year with new work if it’s derivative. Galleries used to be tougher. It was special if your work got in. It meant you were making original, thought provoking work. Realistically not everyone is going to be able to show Viner or Camille Rose Garcia, but that doesn't mean you should find someone who is making similar work. There are tons of young artists out there who are deserving, hard working, eager and super original. Go find them. Promote them. Teach them. There are tons of young artists out there who are copying. They will come to you. Educate them. Push them. Be honest with them. They will return better artists.

And...

Buyers- You’re gonna hopefully buy a piece of art because you love something about it. Investing in art is not bad either. I hope you also really research the artists you are interested in (especially if you're looking at it as an investment). It’s hard to keep track of everything but try to stay informed. Most of the artists being copied have shown at some time at La Luz de Jesus (now Billy Shire Fine Art), Jonathan Levine Gallery, Merry Karnowsky, New Image Art, BLK/MRKT, etc. They have higher standards and will never show anything derivative. Research some of these galleries that have been around for a while (there are more, don’t limit to those I mentioned), get back copies of Juxtapoz, Giant Robot, check out American Illustration, there are also some great books on the subject. Most artists also have their resume’s listed on their websites. In short, do your research. Unless you don’t mind buying work that may be derivative, and that’s your prerogative (cue Bobby Brown here).

So that’s my little rant about this situation. I’ve talked to a lot of people about this and everyone agrees that it is getting to be a widespread problem. Any ideas on this? What are your thoughts?

In defense of Jason Limon:

The tone of Jason's work is entirely different from Soto's, having a much more antiqued, rustic, handcrafted feel, with far less street sensibility. It's flatter than Soto's work, very contained, and often feels a bit like a '50s game board or a '50s appliance advertisement gone bad. (If anything, I'd say he owes something to Kalynn Campbell, there.) It's very interior work, where Soto's is universally taking place in an exterior setting. Jason's work is also rather cute, if sometimes in a mildly disturbing way... and I've never considered "cute" to be Soto's thing.

Jason rarely paints robots and "boxes with tentacles" – he's painting characters based on objects like vegetables, trees, retro appliances and toys. (And occasionally a toy robot.) Much of what you're interpreting as tentacles are actually meant to be seen as roots and worms... what grows under the ground. Anyway, everyone in this genre paints either robots or tentacles, sooner or later... admit it. (By this measure of originality, I'm sure everyone here will be avoiding KMNDZ's upcoming show like the plague. Not.)

Jason's intricate, painstaking work with fitted canvas panels is nothing like Soto's work with multiple panels. It's much more craftsmanlike – planned and executed with the precision of handmade puzzle pieces. Soto's installations seem quite haphazard in comparison.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I don't own any of Jason Limon's work, but I do admire it. I think he has as original a point of view as any artist in this genre.

Just received this email/preview from Distinction - check out Patrick Fatica's work. it's lovely but screams Sas with a dash of Earley:









www.distinctionart.com/current.php?show=6&set=1

thoughts?

I guess lots of artist could think up the large over sized eyes, it's not really uncommon, but I think it's in the way she painted the eyes that screams Sas. with the watery look and so big that they look like they are a bit distorted and couldn't really fit into the woman's head .But I like both artist

i thought this looked very geddes-esque...