It is good to see that recent photography plagiarism controversies—most notably involving Luc Tuymans and Richard Prince—are nothing new. A recently opened display at London’s Tate Britain, Sickert and Photography (until 17 April 2017), looks at the influence of the burgeoning medium on the work of the painter Walter Sickert. Among the archival material on display is a (very civilised) public spat between Sickert and a newspaper photographer called Harold Clements, played out in The Express newspaper in 1936.
Sickert had used a newspaper clipping of the king as the source for his painting HM King Edward VIII (1936), which unfortunately in not on display at the Tate, and the photographer objected. Writing into the Express, Clements argued that the artist’s painting “is exactly the same as my photograph, one of my own creations, by which I earn my living…”. Clements said that he probably would have given the painter permission, if only he had asked, before adding that he understood that Sickert “is a very old man and has to make a living; and that it is very difficult for him these days to go about and get his own subjects.” Sickert responded by paying the photographer the 17/6 agency reproduction fee, and cheekily rewriting Clements’s complaint to say: “I should like to thank [Sickert] now, particularly as he has given my photograph and myself an importance which I could never have otherwise attained.”
