Originality (n.) the quality of being new and different in a good and appealing way
In today's fast-paced, online driven world, the ideals of originality and creativity are often overlooked and pushed to the bottom of the food chain. As an artist, I like to believe that my own work is truly original and thought-provoking. I am passionate about creativity and passionate about work that is reflective of the artist. On the other hand, as an artist, I am constantly searching for inspiration across social media and the internet. I find a painter that I love and seek to copy or replicate certain aspects into my own pieces. Is my work truly original then? Or is it more reflective of someone else's though process? Through this blog, I would like to explore original thought and design and focus on the importance of collaboration over copying.
This is a difficult topic to define for the reasons and scenarios that I listed above. Originality appears to be great. "New and different"...everyone wants to be "new and different"...everyone wants their work to be "good and appealing". But what does new and different actually mean? Doesn't everyone scour social media for inspiration? Doesn't everyone ultimately base their work off of someone else's?
Even after all of these questions and the blurring of white and black, I still believe in true originality. I believe that true original design still exists even in the midst of the social media boom. With the constant flood of photos, tutorials, blogs, etc. it is so easy to lose confidence in ourselves and our own thoughts, but everyone has something to bring to the table.
What makes you...you?
You approached the subject from a great perspective. I discussed the thin line between originality, recreation and inspiration. Do you feel as an artist it is sometimes hard to figure out those limitations and definitions? Inspiration is a multi fasted entity, art, genres, literature, music.. where do we draw the line between originality and an ode to art we love?
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely hard to figure out the limitations. In high school, professors taught that an artist could technically "steal" 40% of someone else's work, but as long as it was changed by 60% then it was acceptable. I don't necessarily agree with these percentages though. A piece of art should be reflective of the artist--reflective of unique emotions, reflective of unique circumstances. However, appropriation also has a time and a place. I think I will explore appropriation in a future blog post as it is highly controversial to some and widely accepted by others.
DeleteIs there such a thing as an original work of art?
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that there is completely original art. A piece of art becomes original when it is solely reflective of the artist whether that be through emotional content or by creating something completely abstract. The focus of the artwork might not be original, but the meaning and emotion behind the art is what makes it original. Or the focus might be something completely abstract, which would be original as well. Maybe this is wishful thinking as an artist myself, but I like to believe that true originality is within if we dig deep enough.
DeleteI am not sure that I agree with the transparency. People do not want to be googled or Facebooked. So they hide under fake names (I am one of those people). Good luck finding me :). We are not talking about trolls. That's a whole another animal. They wont say what they post in FB or Twitter if they went outside and said straight to a face.
ReplyDeleteAs far as original art ... it doesn't exist because a person is likely to be inspired by an artist and creates his/her own art. Is it original? Not really.
Gennie
Delete