Totally agree. Originality, like authenticity, is one of the most overrated concepts in culture. Originality and authenticity can exist, but are of absolutely no merit whatsoever if that's all they are.

Having said that, I can't think of a single thing that I like that isn't in some way original. But it's other more important but ultimately indefinable qualities that draw me to them first.

Perfect example: The Ramones. On one level quite derivative, but still nobody sounds quite like them - or sounded like them prior to their existence.

pinches guerequeques:

originality in art is quite a modern concept. back in the day the measure of excellence was imitation of the old masters. hence virgil wanted to be like homer, and dante wanted to be like virgil, even though he wrote in the language of the marketplace and he invented the terza rima and didn't write in hexameters... but anyway, the emphasis used to be in keeping up the tradition.

flukes aside, the real entry into the future comes with the german romantics, who were into the infinite and all that shit. let me just skip over all the philosophy (kant, hegel, fichte) and simply say that they were into "the new" because their goal was, simply put "the expansion of consciousness". and thus the emphasis on innovation was born.

thus originality has its value in the sense that it creates something that didn't exist before, something with which the mind can grapple and incorporate.

however-- originality is a value in itself, it doesn't require correlation with other ("good", "beautiful", "true", "useful") qualities, unless you're a fichtean whore-- or rimbaud.

see, bitches, rimbaud followed the cue from his german predecessors in this letter known as "of the visionary" (there were 2):


see, i would argue that after rimbaud art no longer searches for the beautiful, but for the unknown (the schlegels had already fucked plenty with the infinite, though), and so art becomes a vehicle for knowledge and mindexpansion where before it was for mere pleasurable enjoyment.

a million years later btw patti smith would scream "i haven't fucked much with the past but i've fucked plenty with the future". same deal. rimbaud enters rocknroll.

but anyway... where was i? i turned a corner and i got lost. oh yes. my point.

my point is that originality is highly important, but pretentious twats will often disqualify something that may be good, true, beautiful, or useful because it' not original-- like some sort of fashion whores.

there are things that don't need to be reinvented-- air, water, sunlight-- and are perfectly good in their own form. in this sense and this sense only originality is "overrated".

but originality in itself, when you remove the pretentious twats and the posers from the equation, is not worthless as some of you claim. not if we are to evolve and grow in our knowledge and understanding of the world, not if we are going to become seers.

anyway, that is that. please dont torture me with silly discussions.

any questions?

i tried repping u !@#$^%#
i enjoyed that much

it has really got me thinking

You obviously aren't familiar with the Saints?

Good skills squire.

the sainst, from australia, predated any of the UK punk rockers, but did not predate the Ramones.

This all reminds me of my brother's girlfriend who paints. She's taking art classes right now studying art history and in the middle of deciphering situationalism (I feel sorry for her). But she mentioned that to get into graduate school, she both needs to focus on one style (something she dislikes a deal) and also has to define her own, original philosophy to describe her work. This she really has no interest in. And I find it ironic that all these movements of conceptual, anti-conceptual, etc. art is actually limiting her more than it liberating her.

pbrad, I went through it and what they are trying to teahc her is "focus". she can do any tuype o art she does, but when you are studying to be a professional artist you have to learn to focus your endeavor so you maximize your ability.
she can do all sorts of things but she needs to explore each individual "thing" to the fullest before moving on to the next. otherwise you end up al over the place and no idea how to progress

Anything You Can Frame Can Be Considered Art.

I teach at an art school and can safely say that art education is amongst the most poorly thought out of any subject. A lot of art teachers have spent so long in front of students that they largely forget fundamental issues regarding practice. I feel sorry for your brother's girlfriend, but tell her it's exactly the same bullshit in the UK.

Framed genitals!

Well yeah, I know that and she knows that but she doesn't know which style she wants to focus on. She's pretty eclectic in her art, she's in the artistic version of the "odyssey years."

So sculpture isn't art?

maybe she should postpone registration then until she gets back to ithaca, or lesbos, or wherever. you know, try her experiments a little, and when she's ready, go for the gold



come on! i asked nicely:


fine then. i'll cover my eyes.

I completely understand

tell her to think about it for a while, a good long while, and see which "style/method" whatever best suits where she is at now and what she is trying to convey NOW.