Is imitation theft or apprenticeship? | by Nate Sowder | Sep, 2025

Published on:

What two forgotten thinkers can teach us about voice, intent and AI-assisted work.

Press enter or click to view image in full size

A 19th-century oil painting shows a young apprentice painter standing beside a senior artist, carefully copying the master’s work onto his own canvas. The studio is dimly lit but detailed, with wooden floors, high windows, and art supplies scattered around. The apprentice appears focused, while the master, seated nearby, observes with quiet authority. The scene captures the traditional method of learning through imitation and side-by-side practice.
Image created by author

In 18th-century Europe, aspiring painters learned to paint by copying other artists.

They spent years in studios reproducing sketches and practicing technique. The point was to learn through repetition, and copying helped these aspiring artists understand what good looked like. Imitation was just part of the process.

Only after years of apprenticeship did painters begin to branch off.

Today, we’re talking about voice and style — something we used to develop through practice and feedback. Now that we have tools that help us produce faster than ever, we’ve failed to teach what good work looks like along the way.

When something feels like it was produced with AI, we discount its quality. We often blame the tool, or worse, we blame the person using it.

To bring some clarity, we’re bringing back two forgotten thinkers: Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Richard Bentley. Together, they offer a path forward.

I’m Nate Sowder, and this is unquoted, installment 7, a series about the people behind the ideas we can’t afford to forget.

Source link

Related