When I found the following quote on greg.org I knew I had to use it as my origin, my germinating seed for my website on my creative practice.
It will make sense later. Hopefully. I think. Watch this space.
25. …This is an apt place to cite Leo Steinberg’s introductory essay, “The Glorious Company,” in Jean Lipman and Richard Marshall, Art about Art, exhib. cat. (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, July 19–Sept. 24, 1978, 1978), p. 8–31. Perhaps the most valuable contribution made by Steinberg’s essay is its consideration of various names of the phenomenon in question (pp.20–25). He concludes that no single term (certainly not “source,” which implies that the earlier work more or less simply generates the later one) comes close to being adequate: “Is there, then, no satisfactory designation for this trucking out of and into art? I doubt if there even should be, for we are not dealing with any one thing. When Sir Joshua Reynolds discussed “Imitation in the sixth of his Discourses, he tossed out, as his context kept changing, the following terms: Borrowing; Gathering; Depredation; Appropriating; Assimilating. Submitting to Infection (or contagion); Being impressed–as wax or molten metal is–by a die; Being fertilized like a soil; Being impregnated. A single term that would comprehend such miscellanea as impregnation, contracting infection, and depredation is hardly worth having. And the reality is bigger still. The varieties of artistic trespass or repercussion (or whatever you call it) are inexhaustible because there is as much unpredictable originality in quoting, imitating, transposing, and echoing, as there is in inventing. The ways in which artists relate their works to their antecedents–and their reasons for doing so– are as open to innovation as art itself, and so much for that.” (p. 25). [end Fried quote of Steinberg quote].