When a teacher says “be creative
and do something inventive and new!” every student is bound to be thinking “oh
crap” in the back of their minds because they know how hard it is to come up
with anything new. The concept that no
idea is original anymore is not foreign to most educated people. However, it seems the world is still constantly
striving for new ideas—original ideas—in places as basic as high school English
to places as complex as multimillion dollar companies inventing software. Since every industry is laced with this need
to be authentic, most people are forced to try to come up with these new
ideas. Their efforts, of course, leave
them swimming in circles of ideas already brought to the surface to be
used. However, even knowing this, they
keep swimming deeper. To what lengths
are people willing to go to in order to potentially be original? Also, is this straining even worth it after
all is said and done?
Before
continuing, please take a moment to click on this link to a YouTube video, and
listen for a minute or two.
The composition, Polyphone X by
Pierre Boulez, is from 1951, but it is very similar in style to more recent Avant-Garde
music and could possibly be one of the early examples of this genre. This style of music is definitely
interesting, and if anything I cringe a little after listening for more than a
minute. The rhythms aren’t even, the
tones overlap to create clashing sounds, and there is no clear melody or theme. One comment on the video even compared it to
the sounds of an orchestra warming up. I
would compare this type of music to very abstract art. At an art museum I went to this past summer
specializing in modern or abstract pieces, one “sculpture” was a pile of
shredded paper on the floor. Might I
mention the artist was paid thousands of dollars for that “art”?
Someone
once told me that something is art if at least one person can get enjoyment
from it. I do not care to argue about
the artistic merit of either of the two examples. I would even agree that just about anything
can be art. Someone could probably
dissect that song to explain its musical genius just as another someone could
stare at the paper long enough to find some profound meaning behind it. However, part of me believes those artists
(the composer and sculpture artist) made the choices they did in their pieces
not with regard to artistic merit but rather with regard to being different and
new. They believe abstract equals
inventive. They believe they have
conquered the feat of all feats—the feat to be original. Except, have they really?
First, the
art piece and song were derived from something else, so by the traditional
definition of original, neither hit the mark.
Both composers probably studied what was common in the world around them
and did everything in their power to do the opposite. Even still, the music had notes and
types of playing used before, and the art had abstract themes used by other
artists. Both had inspiration from some
external source whether the inspiration was conscious or unconscious.
Second, let us say for a moment
that originality isn’t something entirely new, but something that breaks from
traditional ideas or previous forms. For
example, when Pablo Picasso “invented” cubism, it broke away from traditional
realism. In this sense of originality,
his idea was new. However, I would argue
that who’s to say he was the first man that ever attempted to use cubism? Perhaps he was just the only person with
enough fame to spread the idea of cubism, so naturally he is credited with it. The influence he had has nothing to do with
originality.
Therefore, the two examples (the
song and abstract sculpture) are not original in my opinion. Rather, they are a desperate attempt to be
different. While a few thoughtful
individuals somewhere at some time might appreciate the art, have the inventors
really been successful? I am not jumping
to purchase the pile of paper or frantically searching for a place to download
the strange song. Those two creations
will never be mainstream, especially the song.
There are psychological reasons we don’t like it. Our mind is designed to find patterns. Our minds also only enjoy certain note
combinations. This isn’t because humans
are inept at adapting to new sounds. It
is because the mind was made that way thousands and thousands of years
ago.
Those artists’ efforts to be
original will leave them in obscure corners of YouTube and weird art exhibits
in a small building in Omaha, NE. What
they believe as “originality” isn’t getting them anywhere in the mainstream. Boulez’s song is a perfect example of
this. It was composed in 1951. That was over 50 years ago, and I still don’t
see it popping up on any Pandora stations or most watched YouTube
channels.
When people create new ideas, I’m
guessing most of their purpose is to develop something that can reach a tipping
point and become widespread. Since this
is the case, it is entirely more productive to take ideas that have already
been used and rearrange them or shine a different light on them. If the idea isn’t new, the inventor already
knows it is agreeable to the minds of society, and as the old saying goes, “if
it ain’t broke, why fix it?” or in other words, if the idea isn’t wrong, why
throw it out.
If the composers and artists and
writers and inventors of the world are still worried about being original, I would
say this to them: while history tends to
repeat itself, the exact mindset of the world can never be recreated twice. The reaction to an idea can never occur
exactly the same after the first time it is felt. Therefore, if originality means new, isn’t
everything original? That would at least
justify people in recycling ideas over and over and over again.
People are paralyzed by the need to
be original. Since originality and
invention is supposed to propel society forward, it seems we’ve been thinking
about it all wrong. There are some
pretty neat ideas out there, and it would be a shame if people just keep trying
so hard to find something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment