And Now for Something Completely Different
0
This thread will deal with originality. What got me thinking was a passage at the end of Brandon Sanderson's epic fantasy novel The Way of Kings: (I think it's spoiler free if anyone cares)
So other than sharing this interesting piece of literature, I would like to discuss the ideas in it. What is it about originality that is so important to us in art? In humor? It brings to mind the old adage that "Variety is the spice of life."
But are we really so shallow? Or do we simply feel caged in the web of our own expectations of the world, so that when someone comes along that forces us to think, or change, we love them for it, and that is why we do not similarly love the next person to present the same ideas?
I feel like I am rambling though, and will stop there before I get tangled in my own words.
What do you think of all this?
Spoiler:
So other than sharing this interesting piece of literature, I would like to discuss the ideas in it. What is it about originality that is so important to us in art? In humor? It brings to mind the old adage that "Variety is the spice of life."
But are we really so shallow? Or do we simply feel caged in the web of our own expectations of the world, so that when someone comes along that forces us to think, or change, we love them for it, and that is why we do not similarly love the next person to present the same ideas?
I feel like I am rambling though, and will stop there before I get tangled in my own words.
What do you think of all this?
0
I find it ironic, that what prompted this discussion on originality was an already existing work.
Kinda shows what I think about originality, actually.
To answer your question, though, we're shallow and we're deep. We're humans, and humans are very irrational animals, even the ones obsessed with logic and order. I mean...I haven't personally asked any, but I don't think lions or whales or ants really give a lot of thought to upholding order and the natural way of things...they don't need to. They just do it. And they sure as shit don't care how original they are, unless it's some original way to hunt or otherwise survive.
To me, both questions are correct and wrong...it just depends on who you ask, and when, I guess.
Ramblyramblyrambly.
Kinda shows what I think about originality, actually.
To answer your question, though, we're shallow and we're deep. We're humans, and humans are very irrational animals, even the ones obsessed with logic and order. I mean...I haven't personally asked any, but I don't think lions or whales or ants really give a lot of thought to upholding order and the natural way of things...they don't need to. They just do it. And they sure as shit don't care how original they are, unless it's some original way to hunt or otherwise survive.
To me, both questions are correct and wrong...it just depends on who you ask, and when, I guess.
Ramblyramblyrambly.
0
HolyVader wrote...
I find it ironic, that what prompted this discussion on originality was an already existing work.Kinda shows what I think about originality, actually.
To answer your question, though, we're shallow and we're deep. We're humans, and humans are very irrational animals, even the ones obsessed with logic and order. I mean...I haven't personally asked any, but I don't think lions or whales or ants really give a lot of thought to upholding order and the natural way of things...they don't need to. They just do it. And they sure as shit don't care how original they are, unless it's some original way to hunt or otherwise survive.
To me, both questions are correct and wrong...it just depends on who you ask, and when, I guess.
Ramblyramblyrambly.
Wat? You didn't actually say anything...
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
So other than sharing this interesting piece of literature, I would like to discuss the ideas in it. What is it about originality that is so important to us in art? In humor? It brings to mind the old adage that "Variety is the spice of life."
But are we really so shallow? Or do we simply feel caged in the web of our own expectations of the world, so that when someone comes along that forces us to think, or change, we love them for it, and that is why we do not similarly love the next person to present the same ideas?
I feel like I am rambling though, and will stop there before I get tangled in my own words.
What do you think of all this?
Basically, the parts I bolded? I feel both questions are equally true and false. I grew up reading Edgar Allen Poe, Samuel Clemens and Lovecraft, and I fear it shows in my being a long-winded cunt, sometimes, many apologies.
0
I like to think patience is the best talent because with out patience I feel I would of never did any of the things I was considered good at by others and I think that might be the same for others as well. Then being humble next because if you become sure of yourself you no longer think on what your doing because your so sure of your self and may lose the talents or become not as good at your talents. I say this because I was not humble after a while.
0
GroverCleaveland wrote...
“Intellect. If a great thinker develops a new theory of mathematics, science, or philosphy, we will name him wise. We will sit at his feet and learn, and will record his name in history for thousands upon thousands to revere. But what if another man determines the same theory on his own, then delays in publishing his result by a mere week? Will he be remembered for his greatness? No. He will be forgotten.What a sad fact. Gave me better understanding of the phrase "First come, first serve". Kind of reminds me of the "Who took credit for the discovery of calculus" case.
Off topic: Out of curiosity, do you read books with a British accent?
0
I feel that individuality at a personal level is almost to the point where it is so overused and so misconstrued that it will lose all of its meaning. In this 'world wide' society that we've got nowadays, I think that 'cultural individuality' will become more important.
What I mean by that isn't some sort of hysterical patriotism, but rather identifying more with your cultural heritage to establish a sense of individuality over some sub culture that has nothing to do with what you try to present yourself as to those you interact with.
What I mean by that isn't some sort of hysterical patriotism, but rather identifying more with your cultural heritage to establish a sense of individuality over some sub culture that has nothing to do with what you try to present yourself as to those you interact with.
0
This brings to mind Leonardo da Vinci. Some of his works are the very first conceptualization of modern technology. Tanks, helicopter, functional glider, functional (if unwieldy) parachute, and so much more. However, despite his originality, he wasn't given much recognition from his peers for it, even if it was new and original. Instead, it was his art skills that won him praise from his contemporaries. The paintings could be said to be non-original, given that many of the themes and characters are covered before by other works from other artists.
Now, why is it that new inventions, in this case, didn't won out over good art work? Simple: it wasn't functional enough. Leonardo tried to test those inventions, but without much luck. On the other hand, his artwork was impressive enough to make his master retire, simply because the young apprentice had always surpassed his master. People appreciate things that are useful, that either enrich their lives or made it easier in some way. If it is useful, it will be given respect, and if it's not, it will just be glanced upon and promptly forgotten.
Now, us modern folks can appreciate his work more than those alive during his time, but that doesn't make any of the other inventors that made the functional version of his inventions any less memorable. Why is that? Again, because they made an impact on people's lives.
So, rather than say we value novelty, it probably would be more close to correctness to say that we value utility. Those who improve the world in some way are given proper recognition. It isn't just those that invent either. A master cheif that reinvented old reciepts or an engineer that vastly improved an old design will still be recorded down in history as a great person.
Now, why is it that new inventions, in this case, didn't won out over good art work? Simple: it wasn't functional enough. Leonardo tried to test those inventions, but without much luck. On the other hand, his artwork was impressive enough to make his master retire, simply because the young apprentice had always surpassed his master. People appreciate things that are useful, that either enrich their lives or made it easier in some way. If it is useful, it will be given respect, and if it's not, it will just be glanced upon and promptly forgotten.
Now, us modern folks can appreciate his work more than those alive during his time, but that doesn't make any of the other inventors that made the functional version of his inventions any less memorable. Why is that? Again, because they made an impact on people's lives.
So, rather than say we value novelty, it probably would be more close to correctness to say that we value utility. Those who improve the world in some way are given proper recognition. It isn't just those that invent either. A master cheif that reinvented old reciepts or an engineer that vastly improved an old design will still be recorded down in history as a great person.
0
x-gen wrote...
So, rather than say we value novelty, it probably would be more close to correctness to say that we value utility. Those who improve the world in some way are given proper recognition. It isn't just those that invent either. A master cheif that reinvented old reciepts or an engineer that vastly improved an old design will still be recorded down in history as a great person.But if we value utility, then why is art so important, even in the Da Vinci story as you just told it? Art has little to no utility, and yet works like the Mona Lisa are worth more money than most people's houses.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
I don't know if this is coherent. Still, I wanna post.
To me it's simple. People value things that they can value. Sounds like a bad tautology, but I think that's it. I mean, go ask around. You can say as the pinnacle to human intellect, but to those not in the field, do they give a fuck? I doubt it. As a physics student, I've talked to many people about how brilliant/useful/etc a theory is, but in the end, if they think it doesn't matter, then there's no convincing them it does. Proving my point becomes trying to express my thoughts in terms they can identify with. There's no rationality in feelings of revering, it's simply a feeling like any other. Which explains why originality is so respected, because naturally something you've never seen before has greater impact than what you've seen.
It also explains why art is admired despite having little to no utility, and also is hardly original. People can easily identify with themes used in art, so they can dive into it, they can admire it. And they really do.
Ok, before this gets any more incoherent, I'll stop.
To me it's simple. People value things that they can value. Sounds like a bad tautology, but I think that's it. I mean, go ask around. You can say as the pinnacle to human intellect, but to those not in the field, do they give a fuck? I doubt it. As a physics student, I've talked to many people about how brilliant/useful/etc a theory is, but in the end, if they think it doesn't matter, then there's no convincing them it does. Proving my point becomes trying to express my thoughts in terms they can identify with. There's no rationality in feelings of revering, it's simply a feeling like any other. Which explains why originality is so respected, because naturally something you've never seen before has greater impact than what you've seen.
It also explains why art is admired despite having little to no utility, and also is hardly original. People can easily identify with themes used in art, so they can dive into it, they can admire it. And they really do.
Ok, before this gets any more incoherent, I'll stop.
0
I think you're over thinking this.
Originality is simply innovation, and to question our humanity about the drive for innovation is well.....a bit tame imo.
Two reasons.
1. Human nature; we naturally adapt and advance through innovation, it's an instinct and it's why we're at the top of the food chain.
2. In modern society we have short attention spans and live in a consumerist society in which we always want the new thing; we want to grow grow grow! -this propagates reason 1.
Originality is simply innovation, and to question our humanity about the drive for innovation is well.....a bit tame imo.
Two reasons.
1. Human nature; we naturally adapt and advance through innovation, it's an instinct and it's why we're at the top of the food chain.
2. In modern society we have short attention spans and live in a consumerist society in which we always want the new thing; we want to grow grow grow! -this propagates reason 1.
0
I didn't mean utility as in how it what kind of work it does for us, but rather, how it might benefit humanity. Yes, paintings are completely useless in a survival situation, but you wouldn't call it completely useless from the standpoint of culture right?
Art benefits people in many ways. It serves to inspire, it creates discussion, it showcases the thoughts of the artist. Looking at it from that standpoint, you can see how people back in the days would ridicule da Vinci for even attempting to fly, because it's not something humans should do. On the otherhand, few contemporaries would ridicule his art, even if he was a procrasinator.
Art benefits people in many ways. It serves to inspire, it creates discussion, it showcases the thoughts of the artist. Looking at it from that standpoint, you can see how people back in the days would ridicule da Vinci for even attempting to fly, because it's not something humans should do. On the otherhand, few contemporaries would ridicule his art, even if he was a procrasinator.
0
I am not exactly good at serious discussions, but how do we actually define "originality"?
Let us use the novel "Ways of Kings" as an example. Millions of books have been published previously, including those under the fantasy genre. Therefore, can we say that this title is original? On the other hand, the storyline was created by the author himself, so neither can we say that it is not original.
Again, I bring up the topic of technology. Touch screen phones are the rage these days, but they are not exactly original. Touch screen technology has been on the market for some time, as seen in palmtops and handheld computers, but back then, such gadgets did not garner as much attention.
Let us use the novel "Ways of Kings" as an example. Millions of books have been published previously, including those under the fantasy genre. Therefore, can we say that this title is original? On the other hand, the storyline was created by the author himself, so neither can we say that it is not original.
Again, I bring up the topic of technology. Touch screen phones are the rage these days, but they are not exactly original. Touch screen technology has been on the market for some time, as seen in palmtops and handheld computers, but back then, such gadgets did not garner as much attention.
0
There are only seven or so basic plots.
Yes, they're often combined or reworked, but most stories of any form follow them.
Yes, they're often combined or reworked, but most stories of any form follow them.
0
Originality isn't really important to me. What's important to me is plot development and character development. You can have a story with a great plot if your characters are shit then most likely it won't be well received and vice-versa. Also different characters can change even the most simple of plots into a whole 'nother story in itself.
But sometimes originality is nice to.
As for technology well I don't care all that much about what's out and what's coming out. To me it's all the same with maybe a different logo or 1 more insignificant thing added to it.
But sometimes originality is nice to.
As for technology well I don't care all that much about what's out and what's coming out. To me it's all the same with maybe a different logo or 1 more insignificant thing added to it.
0
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, your thread name is hilarious.
If a kid in high school created calculus on his own, for my part, I would acknowledge his capability and originality as much as the person who created it first. But in the end, that's old news. He should have just learned what others before him took the time to create, so in turn, he will have the time to create.
If a kid in high school created calculus on his own, for my part, I would acknowledge his capability and originality as much as the person who created it first. But in the end, that's old news. He should have just learned what others before him took the time to create, so in turn, he will have the time to create.