This essay is written from a prompt asking the author to consider whether it is possible to write anything original or whether everything today is derivative of works that have previously been created. The author takes the position that it is impossible to come up with new themes or emotions because they have all been covered in prior works. However, the author also endorses the idea that even works that incorporate prior work can be original because of how an artist combines elements or ideas.
Originality in Writing
Some people suggest that it is impossible to come up with an original idea. In some ways, this idea may seem true. After all, art focuses on evoking human emotion, and human emotions, while tremendously varied, are limited to the scope of human experience. While there is a wide range of human experience and human emotion, the permutations and combinations of those experiences and emotions is limited. Even non-artistic innovations are rarely entirely new innovations, but building blocks that have come from combining previously existing technologies in a new way. This makes it clear that the notion that the notion of originality is limited if one believes that, to be original, something must be completely new. Originality is not impossible. However, there is very little room for complete innovation left since ideas have been circulating for a long time. Instead, I believe that people have a wrong understanding of what originality really is. In people's understanding originality occurs only when someone comes up with a completely new idea. My understanding is different from other people's understanding, as I believe that originality is creating a new perspective on an old idea. When one considers what has traditionally been considered great and innovative art, one sees that my idea of originality resonates with the artistic community.
Oddly enough, the concerns about originality and creativity have received so much attention because of a relatively recent innovation- the internet. Prior to the internet, people were not able to access the sheer volume of information in the short periods of time that they can today. Therefore, concerns about unoriginality were far more limited to smaller numbers of sources, with which one could expect to be familiar during the course of one's daily life. Furthermore, while it is far easier to commit outright plagiarism, it is also easier to detect plagiarism. Using any of the tools that professors commonly used to detect plagiarism, one can see what percentage of a work or prior works is "original" or unoriginal material. However, there is, at least currently, no way to determine whether the way in which those works has been used is innovative. Instead, it simply gives a percentage of how much of the work is derived from other works.
Depending on how exacting one intends to be about the idea of originality, there is no possibility for one to be considered original. For example many plagiari-sm detectors exclude commonly used phrases and word combinations from their systems, but many sentences are nothing more than combinations of these commonly used phrases. Instead, examining the combination has been the benchmark for helping establish originality. In modern times, the idea of the unique combination or perspective remains a measurement of originality, but the chunks of combined material are likely to be larger. According to Goldsmith, "With an unprecedented amount of available text, our problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information- how I manage it, parse it, organize and distribute it- is what distinguishes my writing from yours" (Goldsmith). In other words, Goldsmith placed much greater value on the organization of words than he did on the selection of words.
In fact, Goldsmith seems to suggest that the ability to put together others works creates a higher burden for establishing creativity than previously existed. While everyone has been given roughly the same ability to access prior works, not everyone has the same ability to combine it in innovative or revealing ways. Goldsmith firmly believes that quality is still critical to the creative process and to the concept of originality. According to him, "Democracy is fine for YouTube, but it's generally a recipe for disaster when it comes to art. While all words may be created equal, the way in which they're assembled isn't; it's impossible to suspend judgment and folly to dismiss quality" (Goldsmith).
In fact, the recent history of modern art has a significant tradition of large-scale borrowing from artistic predecessors. According to Scroggins, "It all begins with the first generation of Modernist poets and artists" (Scroggins). Moreover, Lethem makes the point that much of modern art is borrowed from others, using Bob Dylan's lyrics as an example of borrowing from earlier works. According to Lethem, "Dylan's originality and his appropriations are as one" (Lethem, p.1). Therefore, so much of what is not only considered art, but what is considered an art form, comes from what has previously been done.
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.