Where does the line blur between inspiration and plagiarism when it comes to artistic reinterpretations? I’m curious what people think about this ethical minefield. For example, if an artist takes a relatively obscure painting from the 17th century depicting a woman holding a dove and reworks it into a modern hyperrealist painting, retaining the pose and dove but changing the style and visual context completely, is that plagiarism?
It feels like ther’s a spectrum. On one end,tracing someone else’s work exactly is clearly plagiarism. On the other, being generally inspired by a theme or period isn’t. But what about those gray areas in between? Is it about the level of transformation? Or does it depend on whether the original artist is credited? What if the original work is itself based on older myths or legends; does that change the calculus?
I’m particularly interested in arguments for and against, and any examples where you felt an artist crossed (or didn’t cross) the line. How do we balance respecting original creators with allowing for artistic evolution and innovation?