February 6, 2005

  • Entry 059: Artists and Originality

    this next entry is a response to something i read.

    first read nephyo's 02/02/2005 posting
    http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=nephyo&nextdate=2%2f2%2f2005+23%3a59%3a59.999
      
    consider for a moment the works of claude monet. now i happen to think
    that he's a wonderful artist, a master of impressionism. if you look at
    his works though, they are very similar to each other. mostly
    because... well that's monet. that's one of his styles and that defines
    him as an artist. i would like to argue that people like to see a
    degree of similarity in a specific artist's works. that way they he/she
    develops a distinctive identity. it's fine for your style to be the
    same as your own pieces, so long as they are different enough from
    everyone else’s. if it's a new concept and different, you get praise
    for being "original".

    let's propose a thought experiment. now i'm not an art historian so
    keep in mind that these aren't meant to be historically accurate.

    scenario 1: suppose monet painted three impressionism masterpieces of
    waterlillies in an era of his life that spanned a few years. then he
    never painted any waterlillies again, and critics acclaim that those
    were pehaps his greatest works.

    scenario 2: suppose monet painted two impressionism masterpieces of waterlillies, and had
    idea for a third. he gets critical acclaim for those two works and
    decides to paint his third. but let's say he didn't actually get to
    painting it until he many years down the line, when he was no longer
    the "latest thing". he finishes his third piece, and get accused by
    some critics of being "unoriginal".

    do you see? it's all relative! just like einstein saw it. the three
    paintings in scenario 1 could be exactly the same as the three in
    scenario 2 in all physical properties and appearances. however they
    appraised differently in each scenario. i can't help but think that if
    miyazaki made monoke hime shortly after nausicaa, then people would not
    have criticized it for being so similar to nausicaa. after all, isn't
    resembling a great work of art a plus? well the simple truth is that
    items are never valuable
    in of themselves, the only possess value in context!

    now it seems me that there is no crime being committed, if you are
    "copying from yourself". it's just expectations created by the
    observer, and disappointment on their part that their expectations were
    not met. in a ways people expect that pioneers that create
    breakthroughs should be able to continue to make breakthroughs in the
    future of the same scale. this is not only an outside influence, but
    many times the artists put that pressure of themselves.

    take for example george lucas. people can wish that he will create some
    other film in the future, that will define and shape an era like star
    wars did. but mostly someone else will be the one to change the world
    rather than the same person doing it all over again. when you get that
    big. only a select few are ever successful at redefining themselves to
    the degree that their originality still thrives and their impacts are
    many fold spanning across several eras. madonna is the first person
    that comes to mind. picasso would be another.