Maybe it's the Wall Street antics that have my mind on honesty and how it translates to art. Where is the line drawn between being inspired or when an artist just hijacks something? I think there is no definitive answer except the smell test. In the examples above I do have to say that I think a case could be made that weaving simple shapes like these can be found in many cultures throughout history. But when you know a contemporary of yours is building on that, is it worth repeating at the same time or a few years later? In music when someone does a cover song at least they attribute the original to that artist.
I don't know who brought forth the idea of using igloos and weaving monolithic forms into contemporary art, Martin Puryear or Mario Mertz. But of course Mr. Puryear has claimed ownership simply by the fact that he is more famous. Why that is the case is a whole other topic.
Above left, 1989, Martin Puryear. Above right, Mario Mertz, 1986. There are better examples to compare, but I can't seem to find the images right now.
