# Is Celebrity Photographer Tyler Shields Inspired, Or Copying Other Artists?



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2016)

Is Celebrity Photographer Tyler Shields Inspired, Or Copying Other Artists?  | VICE | United States


----------



## Designer (Jan 16, 2016)

Copying another piece of artwork to make it better might be a legitimate undertaking, but in many of the examples shown, Shields didn't improve the original concept.  We wonder if he has any imagination of his own.

I'd place this body of work in the "cheap ripoff" category.  For which he is well paid.


----------



## Overread (Jan 16, 2016)

Eh I'm willing to bet many really popular photos can be linked back to examples done by other popular photographers. I don't see much he's used the same themes, some better some worse than the originals but some are also such common image themes (kissing lips) that I'm sure its been done by dozens of photographers over the years without any specific overt desire to repeat the shot done by another.

I don't see any wrong and I don't see any right its just a thing that happens in the world. We can demand that our creative inspirations and celebrities create totally unique things; but hte truth is often that what sells and what is popular is often partly what has gone before. So in part you can blame people for the fact that the same themes and concepts rise to the top of the popularity scale.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 16, 2016)

Artists have been copying each other forever. Nothing new but this guy makes it so obvious based on the article. In my opinion, the great ones create something new that begs to be copied or noticeably differentiates their work . The great masters all copied one another. It was very hard at times to distinguish their works but that was in a time where society, critics, and dealers deemed what was acceptable art. It is similar today but more broad but I believe we are going to see someone great again, hopefully in my lifetime. Van Gogh was so far ahead of time he could not even make a living at it because society was hanging on to certain ideas as what was acceptable in art. Mark Rothko was brilliant and accepted but could not be copied because of his technique (still a mystery today). Pollock, arguably, may have been the last great painter in that he did something totally new and clearly distinguished his work. He was accepted with a fight of course but his work is easily copied.

I see this is probably true of photographers as well but I do not know the history, like I do painting. This guy in the link does not appear to have an original thought in his head but I am basing that on the article. I have never seen a large body of his work or any others to really compare it to and give a fair judgement. I think you have made it when someone can look at your work and say that is so and so's work, like Ansel Adams, when you see one of his your like, oh, that's an Ansel Adams piece. The million dollar question then becomes, how do you do that? This guy apparently (according to article) has found a way around that and I say good for him! People are probably jealous but at the end of the day, he probably has a lot more money in the bank then the people criticizing him. 

Picasso once said, “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal.” .... this guy is probably good.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 16, 2016)

Overread said:


> Eh I'm willing to bet many really popular photos can be linked back to examples done by other popular photographers. I don't see much he's used the same themes, some better some worse than the originals but some are also such common image themes (kissing lips) that I'm sure its been done by dozens of photographers over the years without any specific overt desire to repeat the shot done by another.
> 
> I don't see any wrong and I don't see any right its just a thing that happens in the world. We can demand that our creative inspirations and celebrities create totally unique things; but hte truth is often that what sells and what is popular is often partly what has gone before. So in part you can blame people for the fact that the same themes and concepts rise to the top of the popularity scale.



I think it's more the fact that he denies ever being influenced by these other photographs. While it's impossible to create photos that are wholly uninfluenced by other photos, some of these examples are so specific that it would be highly implausible that his recreation is just happenstance.

I never knew scarred ballerina feet were so cliche.

"
in *an interview* a few years back, when he was asked what inspires him, Shields replied: "I just love to show people the way I see the world. It's important for me to explore the things that I see and create inspiration from the world around me. I don't look to other artists, just the world." In a *different interview*, Shields was asked if Terry Richardson is an inspiration, and answered: "To be honest I don't look at other peoples work *I only know who Terry is* because people have asked me if I like his work." [sic]"

If his original work was iconic, then maybe the egocentricity wouldn't be as eyeroll worthy, but he's riding piggyback on other, more influential artists.

Some of his stuff is good, but it's not any better than other commercial/fine art photographers in the same vein, so I don't understand what he gains from this charade.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 16, 2016)

I've never heard of this so called celebrity


----------



## cherylynne1 (Jan 16, 2016)

I don't know. For me, there aren't any original ideas, only original executions. However, I think it's ridiculous that he "doesn't know anything" about those other photographers. 

In the writing world, we have a saying, "If you don't have time to read, you don't have time to write." You have to keep up with what's being done. You have to know when something goes from trendy to cliché. The first novel I submitted to a critique group came back with the same thing written across the top from every person: Have you read Scott Westerfeld? 

Of course, I hadn't. But I stopped at the library in the way home to find that I had written almost an exact copy of his bestselling series. In reading later interviews, I discovered this was because we'd both been "inspired by" (a.k.a. stole the idea from) the same Twilight Zone episode. 

So yes, I believe he didn't deliberately copy anyone else's work. However, I still believe he's at fault for not knowing what other famous photographers are doing.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 16, 2016)

Copied and badly done. It's not just for example the idea of photographing a dancer's feet, I would imagine more than one photographer has thought of that and done that. It's all the examples are just like the originals. These weren't spontaneous, they were set up to be like the originals.

I don't know how much if anything can be done, I doubt it's a copyright violation, but whoever this guy is, he must not be able to come up with his own ideas and original work. I guess doing this gives him some notoriety and that seems to be what some people want, whether it's good or bad it provides the attention they want.


----------



## Designer (Jan 16, 2016)

cherylynne1 said:


> So yes, I believe he didn't deliberately copy anyone else's work.


I disagree, cherylynne1, but I'll spare you the big red "X".


----------



## tirediron (Jan 16, 2016)

cherylynne1 said:


> ...So yes, I believe he didn't deliberately copy anyone else's work. However, I still believe he's at fault for not knowing what other famous photographers are doing.


Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you as well.  Some of them could be coincidence, sure, but others, like the three tongues?  The chances of that are beyond calculation!  He's a lucky hack who came up with a good idea and is making a fortune off of the backs of others.


----------



## cgw (Jan 16, 2016)

_"This level of success is surprising, given that a glance at his portfolio by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of photography would reveal that a high number of his images look an awful lot like those of other photographers. And not obscure photographers, either. Many of his shots bear striking resemblances to the work of some of the most famous photographers of all time."_

Amen. The work is plainly(painfully?) derivative but sells to wealthy plonkers whose visual/photographic literacy is subnormal. His own celebrity(i.e., 'famous' for being famous)is what's selling here, not the supposed creativity. Suspect this creature's "work" will fall out of fashion fast once the trendoids catch wind of being suckered and stop spending.


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 16, 2016)

to me its blatant.  Its pretty sad that there is such a demand for rip-offs.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 16, 2016)

No way this many detail specific similarities are a coincidence.  If this guy's claim to fame is copying other famous photos then I guess that would be boring but honest.  If he is claiming that these are his original concepts then he is F.O.S.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 17, 2016)

His photo's are sharp, his mind is dull, his wallet is fat. Where do I sign up?


----------

