[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And I completely agree with every word of it.
What are your thoughts on the subject?

I read this over twice, to fully grasp everything and chew on it a bit. I've concluded that there are some things I agree with, and some I can argue with.

I found myself thinking [guiltily] that I fit into the shoes he's describing perfectly. When I'm not sure what I want to do, I look at examples to try out. Hell I have a folder titled "Examples" for numerous things in case I draw a blank on what to create. Also, the Photoshop thing hits the nail on the head as well, since I often times find myself using the same techniques I'm comfortable with, that have produced good results thus far, than trying out of the box, bizarre things.

On the other hand, programs like Photoshop have allowed people to further expand their creativity. Allowed them to do things they may have not been able to do if not for these programs. For that, it comes down to how you're willing to use them. While it's made the process easier, I wouldn't necessarily look down on that. There are many things in these programs that have been used to death, but there are many more things that can be created with them that we have never seen before. It's just finding the people who come up with it that's a harder thing, perhaps in part because of what he describes in the rest of the article.

Many artists have a style they stick to, they're best at, and they're known for. Would they be considered lacking in creativity and uniqueness because of that? Because they recycle the same brush strokes or proportions or shapes? I wouldn't think so, if the piece is breathtaking, the last thing on my mind would be a lack of creativity.

While I agree that using other people's work as inspiration leads to somewhat of recycled ideas/art/etc on certain occasions, I also think that almost every piece of art is inspired by something and has lead to creative new things we haven't seen before. People can take an idea, a piece of art, and turn it into something their own, something completely different.

I have to say I think the article can't apply such broadly as he seems to speaking like. I think there are too many exceptions.

Besides, if the art or craft is good, what does it matter what it was inspired by, or how closely related it is to the piece before it?

Though I agree with some things, I can't help but feel this article comes off as slightly pretentious to me.

My two cents.