How do you remain original

Whatmysay, I'm still finding very little reason to suppose that anything like what we think we mean by "originality" is actually occurring in the production of songs, much less that it can stand up as a core artistic value or process in general. The songwriter functions in a context, and his output is at least as much a function of this context as of any capacity belonging solely to himself. His songs do not really originate in himself. Instead, he assembles them from found materials. If all goes well, he may do so in a way that something surprising is produced, or even something distinctly "his own," in that they bear certain peculiar or idiosyncratic characteristics that become identified with himself. This is certainly a sort of genius, but it is not originality as that quality is supposed to exist in art.

Put it this way: Lennon and McCartney would not have made Revolver in the 1930s. They could not have. In the Renaissance, Picasso could not have been a cubist-- could not have invented cubism, as it were.

This observation calls into question our understanding of "invention" itself. We tend to distinguish between "invention" and "discovery," the former denoting an "original" production and the latter denoting the finding of something that already exists. But according to their etymologies, they have precisely the same meanings. That's because imbuing the inventor with special "originality" is itself a rather recent invention-- or discovery, if you will.

According to the root meanings of these words, you might just as well say that Picasso discovered cubism. This is not just a word game. It is a way of viewing creativity that is radically different from standard, current definitions. It sheds a whole new light on it.

This is not to detract from the genius of the inventor or the songwriter. It is to arrive at a different understanding of what he is really doing-- a better understanding, I think.`You know that anxiety over originality stymies a lot of songwriters, and many of the most distinctive voices of our time are plagued by the fear that they will somehow be exposed as frauds. To me, this is unnecessary suffering, because the fear is based on a false concept of originality and of the author function in general. It is indeed a fraudulent concept, and that's what makes us so anxious about it, but we're free to abandon it anytime in favor of a more realistic view of what we're doing, as opposed to what we are supposed to be doing.

You touch on the value of authenticity for a moment. This is another core artistic value that I reject on the grounds that it's individualistic to a degree that strikes me as delusional. Put it this way: we all hear that art is "self-expression," but why does no one talk about art's mission of expressing (and therefore understanding) someone or something besides oneself? Isn't art's purpose just as much to express the other as the self? Art can be self-transforming as opposed to self-expressing, but we almost never hear about that.

I'd also reject the dichotomy between production and consumption. Those who supposedly "consume" a work literally produce it. This is another notion that goes against the dominant model.

Again, I don't want to just play word games. I think we are taught all the standard things about art and culture (authors, consumers, etc.) because this model serves the interests of those who are in a position to tell us such things. In fact, I'm deeply convinced that this is what's going on. Therefore, I think we have every reason to question and resist these things we're told about art, and I find efforts in that direction to be very rewarding.
 
Wow - this thread has grown to something with very deep and complex concepts/interpretations of art and originality.

I think Rat Lizards and Whatsmysay have hit on some very interesting points -but the presentation may have become so cerebral as to have clouded the fundamental concepts:D.

That being said, I very much agree the artist/writer can not be more than the influences which shaped the artist. At it's most basic, the wheel was likely not "invented" until the "inventor" saw a round thing rolling and simply adapted and "re-wrote" the concept.

I have viewed many "works of art" and heard many "pieces of music" that seem to try too hard to be clever and original to the point that at least from my perception they are not "good' or "enjoyable" - but simply "different" (original???) However, in many cases,they may be perhaps too different (too original) for a broad appeal/acceptance. While perhaps the artist or composer did not seek broad appeal/acceptance - I woud think in general, most artists/composers would like their material to reach out to more rather than less people.

As it applys to music/songs - there are only 12 tones and only so many ways to arrange those tones (and there have been sooooo many composers in past generations) - so coming up with "original musical compositions" is almost an oxymoron - and there are only so many general emotions to present (love, hate, pain, joy, fear, etc.) - so actually finding a truly "original" story to tell is elusive at best.

Can any artist be truly original (without being influenced by that which came before) I have my doubts. However, I do agree that often artists/writers can become almost crippled by the fear they are not original - when perhaps they would find more joy in simply being the best they can be - using whatever infuences they choose to create "their" art (and perhaps in turn, more people could share in the joy of that work - even if it is not "original").
 
perhaps... "orginality" is merely our individual veiwpoint of our seperate lives lives upon the earth, as told by our personal experiences, through the gift and talents we have each recieved, in order to otherwise ammuse and communicate with those by which we would have no other means of contact.


now... as a joke... did i just confuzzle everyone... including myself???
 
well... there's nothing wrong with listening to other songwriters or even taking influence from them.

I think a big thing in being original in songwriting is to not give a fuck about genres, or boundaries, and just write what you feel. It seems the more set in stone a genre of music gets, the less original it gets.
 
I am unwilling to commit to either extreme of the spectrum. I believe that all artefacts of a culture and the value they hold are both individually created and social constructed – and like a feedback loop the individual perception is influenced, but not determined by the society an individual lives within. This is the does Media make society or does society make the Media question. If the society absolutely influenced making meaning then there would be no variation and if the individual completely dominated the construction of meaning then there could be no communication.

When you refer to ‘invention’ verses ‘discovery’ there should be no conflict nor should it really change how we think about the art of song writing. When you refer to invention and discovery you are referring to synthesis – when a group or individual, consciously or unconsciously, recognise patterns in a system (physic, society, pop music) and uniquely recombine them to create new patterns, that are both recognisable in the old system and unique.

The value – originality, fitness for purpose, effectiveness – is then created by the context in which it exists.

My point is the you, Rat may not believe ‘originality’ does not exist in song writing, but it is still your relative opinion, no matter how aligned with the ‘dominate model’. I am not playing with semantics here either; I am defining that your opinion like ‘originality’ is relative to the context in which it is created and value other subscribe to it once it has been stated.

This does not in its self prove that ‘originality’ in song writing is not justifiable perceived by others or groups of individuals. If you are saying this then you are saying much like Plato, that ideologies exist in some perfect and external state, like some perfect criteria of ‘originality’ which song writing can be judged as failing.

With regards to authenticity I assume you are referring to my ‘writing a song for Britney’, please don’t let the banality of the reference lead you to believe that I disregard all other purposes for art; to heal, to liberate, to educate, to praise, etc. Never the less within their own criteria of success the art can be measured along a line to success.

As has already been stated by both of us and many others – if the fear of not being original is blocking your writing then don’t worry just write.

Enough of intellectual wanking, back to the real thing
 
Actually, whatmysay, your first three paragraphs are pretty much how I view it. I don't subscribe to any extreme, either.

BTW, I wasn't referring to anything about Britney there, just to your thoughts about self-expression.

Anyway, I'm willing to bet that our concept of "originality" outlined here isn't the one that causes songwriters anxiety, and it isn't the one we're asked to believe by those who are in a position to ask us. That's what I mean when I say it's opposed to the "dominant" model.
 
Rat Lizards said:
Anyway, I'm willing to bet that our concept of "originality" outlined here isn't the one that causes songwriters anxiety, and it isn't the one we're asked to believe by those who are in a position to ask us. That's what I mean when I say it's opposed to the "dominant" model.
Click to expand...

Cool I thought we were agreeing! Too many big words confuse me - Sometimes I am of small brain and big mouth.

Burt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top