Rather than appropriating another's ideas and creativity, why not just make something that's entirely yours? I think there's rather more to Louise Nevelson's work than bits of wood and black paint.

"My kid could do that."

Yes, be inspired to be creative. Copying someone else is not.

@allisen: it's not like every idea is wholly and uniquely theirs. There's too many people in the world for that, and it's impossible to think completely outside your cultural context. Get over the elitism. :)

@Kay - It's not elitism. Artists do draw inspiration from multiple sources, but fuse it into a unique artwork using their own perspective. (Well, at least the good artists do.) Of course no artist works in a cultural vacuum. Placing it as a black-or-white choice between total originality vs blatant plagiarism is over-simplification and not indicative of how the creative process works at all.

By all means, use the artists listed above to inspire you to create something original of your own. However, copying someone's artwork without understanding or acknowledging the meaning behind it just renders it into decoration. You may as well just put a quote in a foreign language on your wall because you like the shapes of the letters.

btw, it's KIRsten Hassenfeld, not Kristen Hassenfeld

ugh.

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to." — Jim Jarmusch

How do you suppose he stuck those butterflies on the wall, Ive been looking to do something like this in my daughters room (minus the beer cans LOL)

Ekko Mobiles in Portland also does a lot of stuff on the incredibly affordable side:

http://www.ekkomobiles.com/

Jarmusch is talking about making his own art, not home decoration.

If Martha Stewart's website or some HGTV web site had posted this, AT readers would be frothing at what a terrible idea it was.

i'm aware jarmusch is talking about his own art. i think if people love an artist's work enough to want to recreate it on their own, that's okay. of course, it's only going to be a copy, or an imitation, but again, that's okay.

Remember staying in the shallow end when you learned to swim? For many, the first visit to the deep end is in the arms of a stronger, more expert swimmer.

@travelingrory: Jarmusch is right, and you are right to quote him. The short version of this is the terse "Mediocrity borrows. Genius steals outright."

For examples, see the works of many fine artists who endlessly painted images of Madonna, the saints, biblical, and classical images, stole each other's pallettes, compositions, etc., ad nauseum.

The great thing about producing art by one's own hand/eye is that each human's uniqueness cannot help but emerge. Even the perfect copy is distinguishable from the original precisely because any work reveals the hand that made it. (See the current exhibit at the Getty on Rembrandt and his imitators.)

The best artists (and performers, including athletes) first obtain a deeply experienced knowledge of the best existing work in their field, precisely by recreating them.

Why should even a tyro decorator avoid this? It's one of the ways we get better.

What is wrong with elitism?

I'd rather be of the elite than the reverse.

A tyro decorator might borrow from Nancy Lancaster or some other designer, but knocking off Calder or Nevelson or Chuck Close is rather different than painting your walls bright yellow. And Nevelson's art should be adapted to putting your socks away neatly? Philistine.

Interesting comments. When I first saw the post, I thought, "Isn't that reducing art to decor? Why would you want a COPY of something when you could make something unique? Or buy some affordable original art for the same price as the DIY materials?" I do love the Jarmusch quote, though, and I can definitely see the points of both sides. I certainly don't see anything wrong with being inspired by something and I realize that artists copy each other and steal from each other all the time. But I do think that it would be more interesting to be inspired by one of these artists because you really love something they've done and decide to make your own version rather than try to replicate something because it goes with your living room.

Considering the author of the article everybody is arguing about says the work of these artists can lead to a unique idea about decor, I'm interpreting the term "DIY" as something looser than "copy-it-yourself." Paper sculptures; multi-dimensional organic models made of juxtaposing materials; bold color/line play are being suggested here. The article is not suggesting putting up a paint-by-numbers Mona Lisa on your wall; it's presenting new types.

By the way, I would like to point out that Sol LeWitt himself did not even create the actual works. He wrote specific instructions on how exhibit overseers were to paint and lay out the work. A Sol LeWitt is a work done using his directions; the works in themselves are for all purposes "DIY"s done by authorized personnel.

Sorry, I went off track. My point is that this article says nothing about COPYING, rather it very specifically says "spark a totally UNIQUE idea." Read the words, it isn't necessary to go off about something that isn't even there.

Some may say it's the title at fault, but really the term DIY just makes the concept more accessible to hobbyists and the untrained/unprofessional. The title "10 Fine Artists Whose Work Inspires Generation Of New Work" is not only a horrible jumble but also intimidating in that it places you on the plane of the fine artists. DIY brings the art to the realm of the familiar and the possible. I don't think this is a bad thing. Everybody deserves the luxury of art, whether it's an original work by a "fine artist" or a work of their own inspiration, perhaps attributable to something before.

I'm sorry if that was harsh. I see a lot here that is truly beautiful, and it just upsets me to see the actual ideas overthrown by politics (as much as I'm falling prey to the same play). I intend no disrespect.

gee this shows a depressing lack of understanding the potential power of art. Keep in mind that ideas that we find mildly entertaining and decorative were initially critiquing and analyzing the culture that the artists were immersed in.
I am really offended by the assumption that Ed Ruscha and a "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster have very much in common.

and unfortunately, some art schools have given in to "no child left behind" and do not train students sufficiently to engage in critical thinking. Harrumph.

still harrumphing...but consider the difference between nachos made with velveeta and really good Mexican food.
Even a cheap street food vendor is going to do something more interesting than Taco Bell, so it isn't cost that dictates art, but it is your own level of interest that sets the bar. For a completely different analogy, look for windows, not mirrors.

and the cheap street food vendor isn't going to reference the really good Mexican food? a continuum of work subjects/styles/methods is found throughout the history of art--hence the validity of taking inspiration and using it towards something new and unique.
of course cost doesn't dictate (all) art (if you don't agree with this, try looking up Dutch art in the 17th century--hey wait--Vermeer's art was commissioned...), but it does dictate what art you can put in your home. hence: i cannot afford to have an installation of DeWitt, but i can appreciate his affinity for combining repetitive brushstroke styles and bold colors and apply this to a canvas painting or some other new work (a la the cheap street food vendor). If the Taco Bell of mass-produced faux pop art decided to start making a bunch of fake DeWitt's, then, yes, I would be offended. However, there is nothing corporate about an individual paying homage by utilizing tools used by the greats.

I think the Jarmusch quote is excellent--I love him and his films. However, there is a big difference between being inspired by (stealing) something that "speaks to your soul" and attempting to steal something because it would look good in your bonus room or is "in."

@ alynnh -- Thank you for your insight and clear, well-thought-out responses. Great to read and think about! You articulate the underlying issue in a way I hadn't considered. I value the opportunity to see things differently. Post often, please.

Speaking as an artist:

As long as someone is just creating copies for their own joy and own home, and not attempting to sell any of it, where is the harm?

You guys would probably rip apart a teenager trying out her first e e cummings poems, yeesh.

A beautiful, private thing does not need to be completely original to have value. Someone can easily do little inspired projects by these great artists with much respect, and think about how much they love the artist every time they look at the piece.

It is perhaps a little like the Tolkien way of looking at creation. There are Big Creators and little creators, but they all have value in their own way. To be a little creator is no terrible thing, because it increases your love and understanding of the Great Creators.

The funny thing is, if you love an piece of art so much that you want to copy it and put it on your wall, odds are it will come out much different than the original and will be truly and uniquely yours.

@Kaete -- Thank you. Beautifully said.

What great conversation, sorry I missed the boat on this discussion. I started making mobiles in Calder style because they fascinated me, and it evolved into my own styles that I make for others all over the globe.
Art is, and always will be, a great bone of contention.
http://artinhighplaces.blogspot.com/