For a long while, we've been amassing examples of artworks that are derivative of other works; some are paintings "inspired" by works of other painters;  some are paintings obviously "inspired" by photographs;  some involve sculpture; some, you might say, would fall into the category of visual plagiarism.  Borrowing isn't anything new in art.  It's inevitable. And it's so prolific these days, particularly in the digital age, that discussions of it have almost gone by the wayside.

This fine story in the New York Times by writer Dave Itzkoff,  "Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny ", provides fodder for all of us to  reflect on the issue again.   Where does the term "inspired by" end and copying begin?  What is the meaning of original?

Mr. Dylan, whose music  we are a huge fan of, recently opened an exhibition of new works at Gagosian Gallery in New York  and it is noted by Itzkoff that his paintings are, apparently, based on photographs, including an image taken by Henry Cartier-Bresson.   

The Times story mentions a passage in the Gagosian Gallery catalog published for the show in which Dylan responds to the question of whether he paints from sketches or photographs:

“I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind the curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes to make it work. What I’m trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes, I do it in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible.”