Good artists borrow, great artists steal

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal." - (No definitive attribution; some refence T.S. Eliot, or Picasso.)

"There is nothing new under the sun" ( phrase adapted from the Book of Ecclesiastes 1:9)

-----------------------------------------------

These phrases are ubiquitous, and seem irrefutable and wise.

What is an artist to do?

And by artist, I mean anyone who strives to create. Whether it be written words or the visual arts. It doesn't have to be high literature or fine art. Someone who wants to start a personal finance blog is in as much of a creative pickle as someone who wants to illustrate a children's book. One has to create something.

I think creating is the easy part. Creating something, anything, can flow easily for many with a little practice. Brainstorming is creative. Freewriting is creative. Sketching is creative. Creativity can be coaxed along with a little encouragement, whether it's in the form of praise, or prompts, or even "mind-expanding" stimulants like alcohol or drugs.

Craft is more difficult (the skill set that makes it good, or passable - whether it be writing skills, drawing skills, acting skills, etc.). But craft also improves with practice. Craft can be taught.

The most difficult aspect of creating is originality. One can practice vomiting out some creative content, and one can also work to hone the craft of one's expulsion. But is it all just regurgitation?

If all artists borrow or steal, if there is nothing new under the sun, then are we really "creating"? Or are we just recycling?

"No man is an island." - John Donne

The irrefutable truth is that no one can fully escape the influence of society upon one's "art", whatever the art form may be. We have all had a certain upbringing, we have had a certain kind of schooling and education, we have certain social mores installed in our brains. We are influenced by media, by what we read, by how others behave around us. We come to the table with a certain set of pre-installed beliefs about what our creations "should" be like. We would all like to think that we are free beings without own wonderfully independent and creative thoughts, but in reality, we are thinking in a cage. We can only create with the limited palette we bring to the canvas.

No one like that idea. We want to think we are independent thinkers. And we like to point to other independent thinkers as examples of how genius can override the status quo. But there are severe limitations to how far one can push the envelope. For example, Jackson Pollack would NOT have been recognized as an "artist" if he had existed in the 16th century alongside Michelangelo and Da Vinci. The idea that paint splatters constituted art just WOULDN'T fly then.

The other point I'm trying to make is that, had Jackson Pollack been alive during that time, he wouldn't have even had the IDEA to present paint splatters as art.

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. " -Isaac Newton

Modern art was a progression. It began when a few daring artists actually left noticeable brushstrokes. Artists became more and more daring; Picasso, Pollack. Artists who drew a single line on a canvas. Artists who copied ads and called it pop art. (I do love Warhol, by the way.) When the minimalist extremes of visual art were exhausted, artists began to extend beyond the canvas; artists like Marina Abramovic who used herself in an installation, where she invited spectators to use items on a table to manipulate her body. One of those items included a gun.

I would speculate that a performance artist like Abramovic would not have been "accepted" or displayed even back in the earlier part of the 20th century, when it seemed that the boundries of "what is art" were beginning to be constantly explored. It was too early, and the boundries of static visual art were not yet exhausted. So it would seem to me that artists who wish to be truly original can only push so far, and must be careful to go only so far as just beyond the already accepted perimeter. If they succeed in going just so far, they will be heralded as original, as genius. If they fall short of the boundry, too far within the safety zone of "it's already been done", then they're a hack; if they go too far outside the accepted perimeter, they will be regarded as a freak, as a weirdo, as a bad artist, perhaps disgusting or vulgar. They may also be regarded as a hack for trying to pass off their "weird" work as "art."

It seems to me that artists in the previous centuries did not have to worry about such things. They only had to worry about being good at their craft. They only had to worry about creating things that were beautiful. They did not have to also worry about being original.

Does an artist have to be original to be successful? Yes and no.

There are many writers and artists and other creative people who aren't making anything ground-breakingly different, yet are successful. They fall into a genre. They produce an expected kind of content. It follows a formula or a pattern or contains enough of the right kind of material to appeal to the right kind of audience. And no matter the genre, there is always a demand for more new content. It is just different enough to be considered an original, stand-alone work, even though it doesn't introduce any new concepts, newly coined phrases, new kinds of visual ideas.

It's like when famous clothing designers decide that this fall's line is going to be 70's inspired. And what's interesting is that the designers seem to be working arm-in-arm. They all come out with things of roughly the same kind of theme at the same time.

So, for people who are trying to make a go at being creative; how important is it REALLY that we be "original?" For those of us who just want to follow our passion and make stuff while also making a living off it, for those of us who don't delude ourselves into thinking we're going to be Pulitzer Prize winners or Oscar winners.... should we even really be that concerned about originality?

Should we just go ahead and creatively regurgitate, and only worry about originality in as far as we don't tread on other's copyright?

I am constantly amazed at the amount of "borrowing" or perhaps outright stealing that goes on in fiction. I don't purport myself to be the most widely read person and yet I often identify authors who seem to steal other modern writer's ideas. I am also surprised how entire genres of music seem to pop up overnight who seem to be outright copies of other bands.

No one else seems all that concerned about how their art imitates others. So maybe I shouldn't be either?

Anytime I create anything, when I review it I realize immediately who/what influenced it. I think "this is too much like X writer" or "this drawing is a rip-off of X artist". If I didn't consciously recognize who my influences who, would I be less guilty? If I was more arrogant, would it matter? For the reasons I've already argued, is it even really possible to create something entirely new? I've already acknowledged that creativity cant' happen in a vacuum, so should I just regurgitate what comes naturally and accept it?

"You have to honor your vomit." - Lady Gaga