[Marvin Mattelson]

Copying is a subject that has been assigned a pejorative connotation by those who generally don't possess (IMHO) the skills to do it. Everything has a purpose if utilized correctly.

In the Ateliers of the past, students were given drawings by their master to copy exactly, a technique to train their eyes to see. In order to learn how to paint one must first learn to see what's really there, no small task. It becomes painstaking only because one must fight their natural tendencies to see the specific at the sacrifice of the whole.

Once one had mastered the ability then the had to once again learn how to copy the cast in their drawings. Only when they had been able to master this, were they allowed to move on to learn how to interpret what they see and begin to create the illusion of three dimensional space on a flat surface.

A lot of academic work fails because drawing accurately is only half the equation. Looking at the majority of academic work it's obvious that achieving movement and action is clearly not being addressed.

Because someone chooses to work in a way that champions the full resolution of form, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was "merely" copied.

In fact, most people who copy photos produce flat and stiff works.

So the problem is not necessarily the act of copying, but the approach one takes towards resolving the form. This requires both tremendous knowledge and great skill and is almost impossible to achieve without the proper training.

The act of copying is merely the means to an end, an exercise to develop ones seeing skills. It is certainly not an end unto itself and to consider it as such creates a land mine that can only subvert the quest for success.