The entry below was written about a year ago and covers some of the same points as were made in the blog I wrote today, but uses examples from the fine arts (as opposed to the music examples of the blog written earlier today), so here it is in case anyone might find it interesting:
How important is originality in art? I think most people would agree that it is an essential ingredient; if an extremely talented painter were to create a copy of the Mona Lisa that was indistinguishable from the original it might sell for a few hundred (or a few thousand) dollars, whereas if the actual Mona Lisa is as close to priceless as is possible for a painting. Two identical works of art; one original and iconic, the other a reproduction, but the first is much more highly-valued than the second by virtue of its originality.
But there are cases where a lack of originality seems less crucial to the value ascribed to a work of art. Many artists have created numerous variants of the same, or similar, things — consider Monet's approximately 250 paintings of water lilies (as well as his other series of paintings of Poplars, Haystacks, Rouen Cathedral, Mornings on the Seine, and the London Houses of Parliament), Degas' extraordinary penchant for dancers as a subject (more than half of his vast output of paintings, drawings, and sculptures is devoted to the activities of the ballet dancers and dance students), or Georgia O'Keefe's paintings of flowers — all highly regarded, but, thematically, not particularly original.
If you enjoy visiting art museums when you travel, there is a reasonable chance you may have seen Rodin's "The Thinker," his most famous work, and one of the most-recognized (and most-satirized) sculptures ever. The original was 27.5 inches high, but there are over 20 additional casts of the work in various sizes, most of which were executed by his apprentices, as I understand it. Their lack of originality does not prevent them from being prominently displayed (and hence valued) in museums around the world.
The paintings in Monet’s Houses of Parliament series are similar – each is of the same subject, from the same vantage point, and on the same size canvas -- and dissimilar – each view represents a different time of day (which alters the lighting) and different atmospheric conditions (hazy, foggy (or smoggy), different cloud formations). The point, as it relates to originality, is that Monet did not attempt to paint a series of completely different (and therefore highly original) paintings; he wanted to paint the same thing repeatedly in slightly different ways, and we value each individual painting highly nonetheless.
These examples, and many others, would suggest that the role of originality in evaluating art is sometimes relatively minor.
Stravinsky is supposed have said “good composers borrow, great composers steal,” [ 1 ]← which is itself an adaptation (or theft?!) of T. S. Elliott’s “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal” from Elliott's essay on English dramatist Phillip Massinger (1920). It is a clever line, the merits of which are of course debatable, but for me the point is that artists are influenced by one another, and part of the way we discover our own artistic voices is by emulating or appropriating, to varying degrees, aspects of the work of others.
Music is filled with elements common to different composers within an historical period and sometimes across periods. When we study tonal harmony, we learn that in the "common-practice period" (roughly 1700-1900, in Europe), there were guidelines governing the way in which chords progressed. These guidelines have numerous restrictions as well as some freedoms, but the fact that there are guidelines of any sort means that originality in chord progressions was not highly valued.
Other common elements from that period include the widespread use of a limited selection of musical forms, chief among them sonata form, as well as rondo, binary, ternary, and theme & variations, the use of Alberti bass accompaniment figures (although it had numerous variants), an extremely-limited selection of cadence types (virtually every composition from that period ended with an 'authentic' (V-I) cadence), phrase lengths and structure (although numerous exceptions can be found), and writing for commonly-found ensembles such as the string quartet.
And yet, despite the restrictive nature of these common elements, thousands of wonderful works were written. There is originality to be found in all great (or even good!) works to be sure, but, as with Monet’s parliament paintings, the differences are often fairly nuanced.
Posts
1 comments:
I think that for art to be original its not necessarily about the subject that is being painted or the chords that are being used. I think if the composer or artist has something individual and unique to express, and they feel free to do so, then no matter what style or subject they choose it will have originality to it and communicate something unique. And I think that's what people look for in art and music. I don't know if people really care if someone is trying to step outside of the box- they just want to see something honest from the artist- something that the artist themself wanted to express and communicate. And no matter what if the artisit does what they like, it will be different than anything someone else would do and therefore original and people will appreciate that. I think a big part of creating is not trying to copy anyone else but just really expressing what you want to in the way you want to and not caring if other pople like it. If you don't worry about other people's reactions I think they are much more likely to find your creation interesting and unique and appreciate it.
Post a Comment