Originality

[incognito]

Can there be any true originality in art?
I was thinking about this today when I was looking at someone's drawing. And I thought to myself: What if I start drawing, but it looks similar, or has references to that picture? Or what if I draw a picture, but it looks similar to someone else's?
Can there be such thing as true originality in art?

[cucaracha]

Art without feelings or impressions from real life isn't possible.
You always have sth in mind by your experiences and emotions.

But you're right, there is this border of a copy or a rip-off, but it's never wrong to get inspired by other pieces of art. The challenge is to turn it into something new (if you have a look at the speed painting thread, my new image there was very strongly influenced by grendel and sparth, it's obvious I think :D)

If you look at the past, every world famous artist did sth revolutionary. But I don't think that you must be that revolutionary or new, just do your own fresh style :cool:

I think the 'most original' art is modern art because it's only based on feelings and not on realistic form and lighting. I choose the more realistic art :)

cu

[N D Hill]

Originality is a big deal for concept artists. At least it should be. I have the feeling that people will often make the excuses that everything's already been done but unfortunately for them, that's complete bull. People who believe that will get left behind. It's like saying that If 2001: a Space Odyssee, Star Wars, Aliens, etc hadn't been made, would you have made them. The truth is that people are too willing to conform to what ideas have already been proven to work. They don't realize how big the parameters for the term "everything" really are.

Now there's also a difference between inspiration and downright copying. It's okay to like a particular artist and draw inspiration from their work in order to broaden your own visual boundaries and accept new possibilities. When you look at a design however and say, "I like that part of so think I'll use it", in my book, you'd be committing the ultimate sin. Acceptable boundaries for "influence" aren't strict enough if you ask me. Just look at all the nearly identicle anime, fighting robots, cute monster things and sword wielding chicks in bikinis you have in Japan alone. If an ideas been proven to sell, change it a little bit so you can call it yours and then cash in. That's not art, it's oppertunism.

Now I'm not afraid to admit that I find inspiration from a lot of artists, most people find it pretty obvious that I'm a fan of Giger, Barlowe and Tatopoulos. While they inspire me to explore the possabilities a raw, biological style with my creatures, I have confidence that my ideas are my own because I'm willing to try something that could very well turn out to be horrible (you should see the stuff that I DON'T put on my site). When I post here, the ultimate complement in my oppinion is when someone tells me something's original.

Well, there's my 2...Wow...That at least 5¢!

[tyboogie]

i think people should take more inspiration/reference from real world experience and artifacts, architecture whatever instead of using what another artist has done as a spring board.


i dont think its a matter of creating something that doesnt have any source to stem from, but how do you use whats around you and mix-match and combine e,lements to create something original


we can talk about originality and artistic technique/style

and we can also talk about originality in DESIGN


just my 2 cents

[pconsidine]

There's a balance that works between what's original and what's derivative. If you go too far toward either extreme, then you're just getting distracted. For everyone out there who's happy being a copy machine, there's someone else who's so tied up in being "original" that they never relax enough to let themselves into their art.

I, for one, am sick of the Cult of Originality. Everything comes from something else. That's just the way it is.Duchamps stole from a men's room. Picasso "stole" from African tribal art. Warhol "stole" from everywhere. The best approach that I've found is not to worry about where you might have seen something similar to what you're working on and just keep working. And keep your eyes open to everything around you. Eventually, you'll be able to make a connection between two things that have never been connected before. And that's where an artist's true originality shines.

[boehmke]

No.

[sepulveda]

YESSS!!!

I'm not saying that I'm original, eventhough I always try to, but I have been influenced by many artists., but did anyone ever did anything remotely close to what H.R. Giger did?

ever since I saw his work for the first time, I haven't been able to associate it with any other artist, but in the last few years I have associated countless artists' work to his.

In my opinion he was an original. so I would say....yes, there can be true originality to art.

and this is only one example.

[bizarre]

Originally posted by pconsidine
There's a balance that works between what's original and what's derivative. If you go too far toward either extreme, then you're just getting distracted. For everyone out there who's happy being a copy machine, there's someone else who's so tied up in being "original" that they never relax enough to let themselves into their art.

I, for one, am sick of the Cult of Originality. Everything comes from something else. That's just the way it is.Duchamps stole from a men's room. Picasso "stole" from African tribal art. Warhol "stole" from everywhere. The best approach that I've found is not to worry about where you might have seen something similar to what you're working on and just keep working. And keep your eyes open to everything around you. Eventually, you'll be able to make a connection between two things that have never been connected before. And that's where an artist's true originality shines.

-Thanks for saying that last part... Keep my eyes open and eventually i'll be able to make the connection between two unrelated things.

I'm not original. Clowns, dragons, monsters, weirdo's with glaring expressions and bared teeth, all that. But i try to be, and what happens is that i lose my original pieces among my fifteen minute brainfarts...

Originality in artwork... well, your art will be about as original as your handwriting, or at least that's what i think. Everyone's got a style, whether they teardrop the dots to their i's and j's or don't vary their line thickness in their work. It's the mistakes and idiosyncracies every artist has that makes his stuff unique. Just like some people can't write cursive letters as well as they can print, i can't paint or draw anything that looks good as well as i can bang out a 12 second vent-sketch. i'm working on it though.


-just my opinion.

[N D Hill]

Originally posted by pconsidine
There's a balance that works between what's original and what's derivative. If you go too far toward either extreme, then you're just getting distracted. For everyone out there who's happy being a copy machine, there's someone else who's so tied up in being "original" that they never relax enough to let themselves into their art.

I, for one, am sick of the Cult of Originality. Everything comes from something else. That's just the way it is.Duchamps stole from a men's room. Picasso "stole" from African tribal art. Warhol "stole" from everywhere. The best approach that I've found is not to worry about where you might have seen something similar to what you're working on and just keep working. And keep your eyes open to everything around you. Eventually, you'll be able to make a connection between two things that have never been connected before. And that's where an artist's true originality shines.

I disagree. While all art is inspired by something, there are fine lines between original works and compilations, variations and slight deviations of another artist's original work. I think the reason that it's so common is bacause artists have becom complacent with it. I stand by my previous statement that too many artists seek safety with what's already been proven. When "everything comes from something" and nothing comes from an original theme or idea, you just end up with a meat-biproduct. look how many space adventure stories with aliens wearing foam-latex and grease paint there are. And likewise, all of the dungeons & Dragons, dwarf, fairy, wizzard fantasy books and movies there are. Dracula and creature suscpense movies etc. They're all deviations from a common theme. I laugh everytime I'm watching a monster movie and hear the line "those things are out their!" from some panicy actor.

Then look at the original pioneers in each of those feilds. 2001: a Space odyssee, provided us with an idea of what spacecrafts might really be like and since then, that was the last time you ever saw a flying saucer or simple rocket in a space movie. Also, like mythological concepts such as fairies, sorcerers and dragons had existed for centuries, Tolkien was the first contemporary story teller to assember such a wildly complex and detailed universe out of them in order to tell his story.

Picasso may have been inspired by tribal art, but ultimately, he was the father of modern cubism and his social and political messages were his own. I have every confidense that artists like him, H. R. Giger, Francis Bacon, Salvador Dahly, etc, can claim ownership for what they create because they ultimately let their own ideas and themes take charge. Their inspirations merely provide an expansion on to their boundaries for visual acceptability and act as vehicles for their ideas.

[pconsidine]

Exo –_

I agree with you, in so far as the ownserhip of the results belongs to those artists. But there are sources for everything, just the same.

I find that the need to be Original usually becomes just a stumbling block artists throw in their own way so that they never have to pursue a line of exploration to the bitter end. They just say "it's too derivative" and then let it drop. But if they had kept after it, it would have blossomed into something worthy of respect.

Besides, most of us live in the grey space between the Avant Garde and the Traditional. It should be good enough to just find your own space and occupy it happily.

[JoShuA]

every artist is a cannibal every poet is a thief.
- Bono.

It's all about internalizing what's already been done and making it your own. you being the originator of this new idea inspired by others, but the idea originating from you, thus it is original.

[seb]

I pretty much agree with much of what tyboogie says in his comment and I think i will go further and say that much of what we see and from stories that i hear from friends that are working, most work being done is dirrectly derivitive of another piece of work, be it a movie, animation, video game, comic book, etc (like how movies have been imitating the matrix since it came out). It's a mindless canibalism that dilutes the worth of your intelligence and creativity. Most important, it is alway better to go to the source material, to something tangible and real.

pconsidine refers to two artists taking inspiration from two real world sources, but that isn't the big deal. The true genius is their ability to draw from a mostly likely unrelated source to make something new. It seems like when you create something new, you need to include something that people understand or relate to. The best lies are 99% true. It seems like people fear change and things that are different and it is rare that something that is innovative makes it big.

There can be originality in art and drawings and design, but it depends on who is holding the pencil. I think i'm just ranting now, but i'm sick of all the star wars/craig mullins/feng zhu/doug chiang/ryan church/blade runner imitators out there. i guess it all boils down to being true to yourself and letting that show through in your work.