Photographic Plagiarism...or is it?

In recent times, there seems to be a whole lot of photographic plagiarism going on. By this I mean, one photographer makes photographs in the exact style of another photographer, or hell, they even make the exact photograph. I truly understand influences, or even "re-photography" (see Mark Klett), but the photographers listed below are just too close.

I might have the time line wrong but here is how I think it goes.

Sometime in the mid to late 90's, English photographer Michael Kenna began to make his images in a certain style. To start with, the images are time lapsed photographs. In an interview I read a while back, he said the shutter on his Hasselblad camera is sometimes open for hours and he uses slow film and ND filters. The silver gelatin photographs that he ultimately prints are small, I believe 8"x8", and no bigger. He then split tones them with selenium and sepia toners. They are absolutely gorgeous. I've had the pleasure of seeing many of them in person in Santa Fe. A good friend of mine even owns one or two of his Japan images as well.

While doing this work, I believe Michael had an American assistant named Rolfe Horn. Now I can understand how someone like Kenna might have an influence over someone else's work, but to me this is awfully close. Horn also went to Japan and photographed similar snow and seascapes. I'm not sure if they went to Japan together, but some of the dates appear to be similar as well. Yes, follow thy master but this is just too close for me.

Then came American David Fokos. Don't know much about him, but his work is definitely "similar" to Kenna's. Time lapsed seascapes make up his Water Portfolio. I remember seeing his images in several photo magazines as this work was well publicized. Every time I saw an image, I thought it was a Kenna.

Recently, the German phenom Josef Hoflehner burst onto the scene with a photo book entitled "Unleashed" in September 2005 (which sold out). While I was viewing the book, I realized that not only was this a direct copy of Kenna's style, but all of the titles are from heavy metal rock songs (ie. Judas Priest's Breakin' the Law). Now Hoflehner had published a few books before this one, but none of them were in the "style". Check out his last three books and you will see what I mean.

If the above wasn't bad enough, another newcomer, a Canadian photographer named Michael Levin, has started producing large images that have no doubt been "influenced" by Kenna. Actually, "influenced" is the wrong word. Levin appears to have made more than a few photographs that are strikingly similar to that of Kenna's earlier Japan work. Too similar. It almost looks like he set up his tripod in the same place Kenna did. Go to his website and you'll see what I mean. I am not sure why he did this but he did. The guy is obviously talented and should have, in my humble opinion, done something else.

Another similarity between these photographers is Kenna's work starts at $1500 and goes to $4500 I believe. In checking the pricing on the others, their pricing is almost identical to Kenna's. Oh yeah, the photos might not start off as squares (I think Levin shoots 4x5) but they all end up squares.

I also know of several other, extremely talented photographers who are influenced by Kenna but know where to draw the line. One example is Bill Schwab. Take a look at his site and you will see what I mean. You can clearly see his influence (in some of the photographs) and also see that he has not hijacked the Kenna style.

I am not sure why I am so bothered by this but I am. I will state for the record that I do not have the talent that any of these gentlemen have and I certainly wish I did. I have to ask myself if I would do the same kind of work if I had these kind of skills? I am pretty sure I would not. And is Kenna's work that good that other photographers feel they just have to make the same kind of images? I guess so.

So I am wondering at which point does this become photographic plagiarism? Or doesn't it? To me, there is certainly a line. If I stand in front of a rock that has been photographed by "Photog A" and I make the final print look just like his, including the cropping, the toning, the composition, etc, is that my photograph or a copy of Photog A's? I am all for artistic interpretation, but this is a bit ridiculous. Have a look for yourself.

(I have not posted any of their work here, only links, for direct comparisons)

Michael Kenna's China vs. Josef Hoflehner's China

Michael Kenna's Torii vs. Michael Levin's Torii (go to image #2)


Also see this LINK and this LINK.

(Update: I forgot about these, David Burdeny and Denis Olivier)