Cult of Originality

Remove all ads!

An interesting point was raised by Chevalier (and myself, I guess) over in Whatnots - what is originality?

Well - is true originality even possible anymore? Or is the attempt to be original really just an absurd contradiction that leads to an entire world full of 'posers'?

 

I've always thought that those who were truly original were so because they could care less about terms like "original" or "poser," or those who distinguished the two. They just did what they did, and the opinions or judgement of others was irrelevant. In the end, it's what you think that matters.

* "chi-ching" of my two cents *

 

Well as soon as someone says something like 'well i try to be original' they aren't original, because if the person is trying to be original then they must be copying/emulating/mimicking/following/etc something/someone which is therefore not original.

So if someone tries to be original then they are failing by that very effort of trying.

Death Rabbit has, IMO, got it more or less right "They just did what they did, and the opinions or judgement of others was irrelevant. In the end, it's what you think that matters." though unless you can actually read the persons mind it could just be an elaborate hoax/act at not caring, rather than really not caring and just doing what you want to do because it seems like a good idea at the time.

 

So it could be said then, that the difference is between making an effort not to care about what people think, or just simply not caring what people think.

That may or may not have made sense.

 

Since I have already received a honorary mention, I suppose that I am entitled to spam this topic a bit.

So, my humble opinion is that showing lack of consideration and lack of compassion is not original - it's how the majority of people are, even if not all admit it openly.

Being original, truly original, is being true to yourself - never betraying your principles and if straying from the path, realising your transgressions, fixing them, putting things back right and trying not to repeat yourself. Everything else is pose - by accident original in itself, but common and commonish in spirit.

 

I agree with the mainstream of people here it seems. All through my teenage years and to some extent still there were people that went to great lenght to be original. The only problem was that there were a couple of thousand other people that went to teh same lenght to be original. End result was that we ended up with a couple of thousand teens looking exactly the same, thinking exactly the same and doing the exact same things all thinking they are original and going against the stream.

In a way it is highly entertaining. If that makes them happy let them do it but it is amusing that they go to such great lengths to look like exactly like a huge group of people all in the name of being original.

Heck, I would almost like to say that being 'mainstream' is kinda original among todays youths. If you dress properly and in what mommy wants you to wear and have moderate opinions and listen to hitlist music you are damned near extinct nowadays!

 

In this morning's paper there was a review of an exhibit of work by a local Mennonite artist. Because this culture completely rejects the "worldly world," the artist had to break from his heritage to pursue his craft. He later commented on the irony that "the celebrated practice of non-conformity did not seem to allow me the right of individuality."

It seems to me that we're blurring the line between "originality" and "individuality" in this thread. Can a person not develop an individual style that is a conglomeration of ideas from others? It's the package that makes the person, not any single element. To me, originality is the ability to come up with new ideas and individuality is the self-confidence to go with them in the face of opposition.

 

I think that someone is original as long as he does not consiously copy someone else. In this world we are more than six billion people it is only logical that someone in one or more aspect will look just like us. But if you didn't copy consiously your anything from someone else then i believe you are original.

 

So,according to your theory, the main character in A Beautiful Mind was not truly original in his theory of equilibrium because he sought to be original? It was merely a pose because of this? I think not. I think anybody can take an active role in seeking the road less traveled, or even the road never traveled.

 

To a degree you are very much right, it's a question of making sure you find all the available maps, and then disgarding them.

Only to find that someone else already went there.

If by definition of being original in any way you have to do something that no-one has done before, well we're all pretty much buggered.

I would go with the idea that being original is being yourself, without trying to follow what others have done though etc, yet you cannot exclude someone from originality just because others have done the same thing before. It's to a large degree a matter of perspective.

(Yeah, I'm un-originally influenced by alcohol.) Hic.

 

Rally -- I'm not sure I understand. It is probably my bad, but if you can give us/me an example of a work or artist that I know of, to demonstrate what you are saying, it would probably help. The closest I could come (in my thinking) would be someone like Van Gogh.

I had always thought of Picasso as an original until I took an art class in college and the instructor proved that he was perhaps one of the greatest thieves in Art, which reminded me of that quote: "Good artists borrow, great artists steal."

But I've always thought of Van Gogh as a true original and not a thief or a derivative artist.

 

Original is when you do something new or different, no matter whether your trying to be original or not. And if it has been done before in sufficient quantities then it is no longer original

 

@Chandos - I'll get back to you later. We're quite busy today; I just didn't want you to fell ignored.

 

Hmmm... I sure hope I am original, or at least individual, because if there are more people like me , the world is going to end in less than a few decades....

Anyways, here's what I think: Many people can be original and not appear so to some people, because what they create, which to others may seem to be borrowed from somewhere, is original to them because they have never seen what the others deem as the "original" work.

Great minds think alike.

On the other hand, when it becomes to the originality of an individual... all these "original individuals" are just another mass.

Originality and individuality are all about not caring what people think, I think

 

@Chandos: The artist I was referring to is Warren Rohrer (the article was about a retrospective of his works that recently opened at the Philadelphia Musesum of Art). I think was he was saying is that most people consider Mennonites to be non-conformists, at least with respect to overall, current society. Art is also usually considered to be a somewhat non-conforming profession. However, for Rohrer to have a future in his chosen, non-conforming career, he had to leave his non-conforming roots behind and enter mainstream society. Ironic.

 

But that's confusing. Anabaptists are sctrict conformist and wouldn't care about individuality. They only seem to be "original individuals" because they are a tiny minority, which gives them an exotic status. But being exotic, doesn't mean being individual or original, but it's probably the thing, which seems the most individual and original.

 

I agree with Yago, it is confusing. But nevertheless, I'm intrigued enough by Rally's idea to explore this artist's work, since I am not familiar with him.

I'm kind of reminded by Greenblatt, the literary critic, who feels that there is a sort of negotiation between the artist and society, or the social context in which the artist is working and his own obsessions. But I don't want to misrepresent Rally's viewpoint either.

[ July 15, 2003, 03:17: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Nothing is confusing about originality at all.

4 intelligent apples roll down a hill.

The first just roll down
The second takes a bite of itself and stops
The Third one parts itself in two to stop.
The fourth Apple parts itself in two to start spinning.

What makes the second apple the only original one?
It makes an active action which can be derived upon by others in many new ways and isn't derived itself from any existing actions. Wheter or not it is charming and productive to persuit this label just because others do is a matter of personal taste not linguistic paradoxes( except for those pseudo philosophers who like toying with words. But are they really toying with words if everyone else is toying with words? And the quest for linguistic paradoxes continue in infinity. ). The third and fourth Apples are more likely innovative than they are original. Call them individuals if you like . And the first apple makes a passive action rather than an active one which is neither original or innovative.

One fact still remains. They are all satisfied. And they all do what they feel is right. And isn't that the most important aspect afterall?

[ July 18, 2003, 14:50: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

@Chandos, Yago: I think Mennonites are strict conformists within their own community (e.g., Rohrer had two "career" choices as a Mennonite - farmer or minister), but from the world at large they are anything but. At least, that's how I interpreted the quote.

 

Something like: Society at large looks at anabaptists as a example for an individual lifestyle.

Anabaptists crush down on anything individual.

Rohrer had to break free from the anabaptists to gain his indivudality. Society at large sees his background he had to break free from as very individual in itself. Maybe even interprets his "individual" anabaptist roots as reason for his indiviual style as artist ?