I don't think this qualifies as plagiarism. After all, didn't Andy Warhol take a soup can and repeat it over and over again. I don't remember the soup company crying plagiarism. Or the designer who first came up with the soup can cover.
I don't think this qualifies as plagiarism. After all, didn't Andy Warhol take a soup can and repeat it over and over again. I don't remember the soup company crying plagiarism. Or the designer who first came up with the soup can cover.
But how would he/she feel? Privileged to have their obviously commercial work elevated to Art? Shamed, because of same? Or simple bemusement, like so many others?
Regardless, I don't think a portrait is in the same category as a can of soup.
I'd agree that his reason for producing the images and the context in which they were displayed added an extra depth to said images. However, he claims the reason he made them was variously (paraphrasing) "because I like soup" and "because my mom used to use soup cans and there were a lot around"; hardly the basis of a great artistic statement.
The artistic impact then must be in our interpretation of why we feel the artist created the images "he's make a great statement about commercialism in art using a screen printed image mirroring the industrial design techniques of this epoch" (or whatever) rather than "hmm, he likes soup".