"herr blob" wrote in message
> to what extent is 'originality' in art really a matter of personal
> style? is originality merely a case of extreme personal style?
> is it a byproduct of failed imitation? something that accidentally
> results in a kind of unforseen mutation?
[I'd say originality (which you haven't defined) can result from accidents,
as well as conscious decisions, asking questions that haven't been asked
before, or the use of new technology, which can give new answers to old
questions, or offer solutions that previously weren't available. Personal
style is usually something that has to develop; it's not an intrinsic thing.
All very young children, given the same crayons and newsprint, draw in more
or less the same style; as they grow and practice, try things out and absorb
influences, their artistic differences become evident.]
>
> or, is there a clearcut boundary between personal style and
> originality?
[There are no clearcut boundaries in art's definitions, just one thing
shading into another.]
>
> consider this. there were negroes singing the blues. whiteys tried to
> imitate the negroes but didn't have the voice, nor the rhythm, and
> ended up producing bullshi* blues... but in the process they created
> something new and valuable.
>
> personal style--and some degree of originality--cannot be avoided. no
> matter how much you try to paint like andrew wyeth or picasso, your
> intrinsic abilities will force you to do things somewhat different.
> no matter how much you try to play like eric clapton, b. b. king, or
> eddie van halen, your brains/fingers/temperament will produce something
> noticeably different.
[I'm not sure that poor imitations count as originality, even if they look
(or sound) somewhat different than the originals they emulate.]
>
> we tend to distinguish between traditional art and modern art, but all
> arts of course grow and change. the difference is modern art is much
> more open to personal 'innovations', indeed has made willful
> innovations the core of its philosophy. but, even in modern arts, what
> you mainly have are artists imitating modern masters, and if something
> new is achieved, it's almost accidental, a matter of personal style.
> traditional arts tried to suppress or control personal deviance within
> what was considered valid, but there were always some innovation and
> they weren't so much willed as 'accidental'--cases of mutations arising
> from intrinsic abilities of the artists.
[Perhaps you're giving more weight than you should to "intrinsic abilities"
and less than you might to artist's individual intentions. Certainly there
is a lot of art, modern and otherwise, that's imitative in intent, which
falls short due to lack of ability (intrinsic or not), but that's not
usually considered as innovative as art that starts out trying to do
something different in the first place.]
>
> so, maybe artists shouldn't try to be original. they should just copy
> whatever out there, and if they have a inborn personal style, they will
> naturally transform it into something new almost as if by accident.
> their failure at imitation will produce something new. like the
> grateful dead were miserable at imitating the blues and their blues
> wasn't what could really be called REAL blues. but, it became something
> else that was really cool.
[I'm not sure that the primary intent of the Grateful Dead was to imitate
the blues artists of the previous generation, as you seem to assert above.
They were open to a wide variety of influences, from blues to country music
and the nascent "acid-rock" of their peers. They came up with their own
synthesis, which is a perfectly valid means of arriving at an original
conclusion (ask Hegel). But there's nothing wrong with an artist or musician
who is just beginning to explore an art form to start by imitating the
examples of previous work he or she might admire. There's a lot to be
learned in the process. At the point this artist's work goes beyond the
original material and adds new elements, we start recognizing the artist's
contributions as novelties. As this growth process continues and the work
diverges yet more, we compliment it with the word "originality". Perhaps
it's over-rated as an artistic criterion, but it's a lot of what modern art
(and its successors) has going for it. Without it, art gradually decays, as
the original impulse of passionate creators is diluted by successive
copyings by the less creative. ]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
