Curiosity Corner #24 A coincidence perchance?

[Rodney]

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.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&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

[Dave Joll]

Rodney <rod...@touch88.com.au> wrote

Interestingly enough, a Durer painting was reproduced on the
1961 Christmas stamp of New Zealand. Having compared the
two stamps side by side, I think the similarity is merely
coincidence - or, perhaps, Beasley was unconsciously working
under the influence of the earlier stamp?

- Dave
--
Lowering the tone of Usenet since 1997...

Please send replies to New Zealand instead of Zanzibar.
Sorry, but the spam is just getting a little too much...

[Rodney]

The evidence seems damning on the face of it, esp with
the evidence of the two barn pole supports in the position
that they lie, but it's hard to convict without evidence from the accused.

The only problem I had with the tale was AustPosts comment
"from an original design of Beasley". That comment is
not supported by the artist, but therein lies the crime.

I don't find any affection for the design, which on cover at
normal distance looks messy and ill defined, but I must say
whetted the interest by controversy. (I don't think Mr. Durer
would be overly concerned :-)

I'll make a point of checking the NZ issue

Rgds