Curiosity Corner #24 A coincidence perchance?

Anyone who has experience of the arts knows that a claim to originality means trouble:
there are so many different meanings to the term. And man's history is so long; how
can one know all the precedents?

Let's suppose, for example, that you are writing an article or a book. If you include a
paragraph or two from another book or from an encyclopedia, you are guilty of literary
theft, to which the ugly name of "plagiarism" has been given, Do it properly, however,
and include extracts from several books, and a suitable amalgam will enable you to
publish "the results of research": praise will resound.

It may be that you err unawares. Many years ago a young music student, told to write
a hymn tune as an exercise, glowed with pride as he brought his effort along the
following week. His professor gave him a quizzical look, and reached for a copy of
Handel's "Messiah"; the last soprano solo was reproduced almost note for note in the
"new" hymn tune. A likely tale, you may say - but I know it to be true, hecause I was
the student. You may like to think that it was a case of two geniuses thinking alike, but
it was more probably a long-overlaid memory surfacing unconsciously.

In the field of art (to use the wrong restriction of the word which confines it to
painting, drawing, etc.), further and graver difficulties arise. Let's suppose you sit
down before the Mona Lisa, or a lesser known master-piece, and laboriously produce a
facsimile which for a while passes as your own work. No one will call it plagiarism,
because that term tends to be confined to literary theft, but there will be a few who will
comment unreservedly,

But it is your own work, and indeed a measure of skill is required to secure any
degrees of success. Arising from this skill and also, perhaps, from some carelessness in
the use of language, in "the world of art" you are absolved from guilt if you call it an
"original" work.

In the world of art: yes. But don't try it outside. The man-in-the-street won't have a bar
of it. He may be under-estimating your skill, but he is showing an instinctive regard
and respect for something which is even more valuable - an idea. Your "Mona Lisa"
doesn't rate highly because the idea was not yours. He may say (or at least think) that
you pinched it.

We are now entering the realm of metaphysics, and had better go no further, but a
background is necessary before we can evaluate the design of the 1970 Australian
Christmas stamp and its description as supplied by the Australian Philatelic Bureau.
The official note reads:

"The Christmas stamp was designed by a Melbourne art student, Mr William Beasley.
it features an original design by Mr Beasley but gives the impression of an oil painting
by an 'old master'."

MY impression was exactly that, plus "where have I seen that before?" As with most
busy people, such a thought got no further. But when a friend showed me an old
triptych in which the centre portion matched the stamp's design and outline almost
exactly, the need for greater knowledge became imperative.

Tile early search was among the works of the Flemish school. Brueghel or Hieronymus
Bosch were suggested by the clear line and definite colours of the triptych. But it
proved to be one of Albrecht Durer's later works (1526) now in the Munich gallery.

Almost everything matches, indeed could hardly be closer if it had been traced - the
position of madonna and Child, the animals' heads at Joseph's right, Joseph's position
and particularly the curve of the scarf, the damaged stable roof. The colours have been
changed and Durer's clear outlines have been broken down.

http://groups.msn.com/Stamps/shoebox...oto&PhotoID=59

A collection of Christmas stamps show many designs which have been taken from
paintings of olds masters. Many have had to be adopted to suit the printing process
available, but care is almost always taken to acknowledge the source of the
reproduction.

May we expect to see Australia's "original" Christmas design listed in the catalogues as
"after Durer"

..........By David Plummer
Australian Stamp News 1971