Random discussion topic

[textualdeviance]

Is all art derivative?

Can there be any truly originally-genesised creative work?

What creative professions are the least derivative?

Is non-derivative art necessarily more worthy than derivative art?

And finally...

In an age of instant global communication, can the feedback loop become so closed as to make commentary on a work of art become part of the work itself?

Comments

[machupicchu.livejournal.com]

.
.
Given the subjectiveness of art, it's difficult to answer these questions without falling into the trap of generalizations, even though speaking for anyone but oneself -- however inadvertently -- kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion like this.

I don't necessarily think there has been any purely, or "truly" originally genesised work since the dawn of man. When push comes to shove, we're all just recyclers and that's all there is to it. On the other hand, a newborn baby is recycled matter and it's still pretty easy to think of it as original. It's not the matter itself, but rather the combination thereof, that makes it original. Different combinations make for different results. Thus . . .

1. I say yes. But I think art can be both derivative and original, at once.

2. I think of "original" and "truly originally-genesised" as perhaps different things. Yes on the former, no on the latter. No idea can be born without the help of ideas that came before it. Neither Einstein nor Michaelangelo could have gained their unique perspectives without previously held notions holding them up; they simply presented them in new and original ways and built upon them.

3. If there is no such thing as non-derivative art, then this question is moot. If that were not the case, however, I would never say that one form of art is more worthy than another. I find that idea preposterous, given how much art is in the eye of the beholder. I love abstract art; someone else loves to see a urinal hanging in a gallery. Art can be brilliant or naive or insightful or juvenile -- none of these things, in my view, negate their status as "art."

4. Absolutely. But I believe this to be the case with or without instant mass communication. Art critics may be easily dismissed, but it has always been the case that their commentary can change the perception others have of the piece. I see that alone as becoming part of the work itself.
.
.

[weetanya.livejournal.com]

I think that there's space for creativity in the mingling of genres.

That's part of why the LOTR movies are working so well -- they aren't pure fantasy, they're drama set in a fantastic/historical location, and therefore scream of creativity.

I realize that I'm suggesting that creativity exists in the mingling of two old parts, but ... there are so many old parts out there that plenty of new material can spring from it.

I mean ... art-cars. Art + Cars. And Gay Nude Yoga, near my pal greg's house in SF: Gay + Nude + Yoga. Much new can come out of much old. All depends upon your definition of new.

*

And sure, the mere fact that we're discussing art is performance art. I sense a butterfly on Alpha Centauri trembling.