originality

03.24.08

it was in Dr. Laudadio's 'writing about film' class a year and some ago when i was first exposed to the idea of un-originality in everything. he was expressing the concept that, in theory, nothing is truly original, because it innately draws from every single thing around it, past and present. this idea is, of course, un-original in and of itself, and in my opinion, both correct and incorrect. it is also the underlying topic of one of last weeks readings, entitled "the ecstasy of influence," by Jonathan Letham.

it's a solid idea, seeing as how it's undeniably true that most thought processes and understandings and revelations are drawn from experience. but still, can pure originality (i.e. true creativity) exist?

it's hard to say no, because on an individual level, you want to know and believe that all of the wonderful revelations and ideas you have are 100% unique and new. but it's also hard to say yes, because you have to recognize the fact that it's only in your brain because you have been exposed to it previously. in millions of forms and fashions, a collective experiential past takes shape to create even the smallest of thoughts.

anyhow, enough philosophy for now...

"the ecstasy of influence" was about just that idea, though, but on a totally different scale where originality is not the point, but the point instead is to purposefully draw from all those sources to create something brand new. (philosophical argument begin: but again, is that truly "new" ? or is it recycled, thus used, thus old, while being a type of new? is a new "used" car new? it's new to you...) i certainly don't know the answer to that question, but what i do know is that something new, and often times wonderful, is created. it can ascribe a totally different meaning to the original piece, or piece before that, or piece before that. like i learned in "the yes men" something can be recycled 10 times, and will still contain approximately 10% of it's original intent....

that said, this idea is very relevant to our current 'found footage' projects, as that is exactly what it is. i am doing two found footage projects concurrently (the other in intro to edit) and much prefer the one in this class, as it gives me free reign to pick my footage. therefore, you can truly shape the idea of what you are trying to say.

my favorite part of the Letham article occurred on page 63, when he writes, "Today, when we can eat Tex-Mex with chopsticks while listening to reggae and watching a YouTube re-broadcast of the Berlin Wall's fall -- i.e., when damn near everything presents itself as familiar - it's not a surprise that some of today's most ambitious art is going about trying to make the familiar strange. In so doing, in reimagining what human life might truly be like over there across the chasms of illusion, meditation, demographics, marketing, imago, and appearance, artists are paradoxically trying to restore what's taken for "real" to three whole dimensions, to reconstruct a univocally round world out of disparate streams of flat sights."
To me, thats the point.

I concur.

----

on another note, i thoroughly enjoyed the ron english, subversion of art film that was shown, and have since spread that word. but as my friend pointed out (and something that i had really not thought about yet): what's the point of him going to eat mcdonalds with his kids at the end of the movie? isn't that a bit paradoxical?