Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
hey guys in this video im going to unlock the paradox of being original while building
on the creativity of others.
I was watching a TED talk which I'll link in the description about how original thinkers
take what's already there and build on it by imprinting their own tastes.
One of the examples given was about web browsers.
If you're using a web browser that's already pre-installed on your computer and never thought
to look past that little paradigm you might not be that creative because you never asked,
"Is this the best that's available?" "Is this what works best for me?"
People who involve themselves in solo artistry or non-team sports like jiu jitsu or tennis
or poker are gonna have to ask, "Is this the most optimal way for me to operate - and if
not - what is it?" That's definitely not sticking with Internet Explorer.
A user named Elenabob posted in the comments and asked:
"Hmm, being original by being derivative."
And that's all she said and that gave me pause for thought because it's a paradox. How can
you be original and yet build on something that already exists?
In the video it talked about Improvers and First Movers. So how can we reconcile the
difference? I think that in every paradox is hidden tremendous power similar to an atom.
So let's split that atom and unlock it's power.
Let's start with the least important point: the dictionary definition. Now Elenabob specifically
mentioned the Oxford Dictionary so let's use that definition.
The first entry is an adjective which says - and let me read it - don't wanna make any
mistakes!
Present or existing from the beginning, first or earliest.
Well, what's even been here from the beginning? The big ***? What was before the big ***?
The small ***? A reverse ***? A reverse cowgirl ***? I mean we don't know! It's a
theory. I mean yeah the universe is expanding.. makes sense that at some point it was really
really small or tiny or tight. Ok I'm just going to stop there.
But the point is all the atoms that are here have always been here but all the forms that
are made out of them are continuously changing so - what's original? How far back do you
have to go? Is Michelangelo original because he didn't pop out of the big ***? Should
I not listen to Dubstep because it wasn't there before Beethoven? It's pretty clear
that there's no real delineations in life about where something starts and where another
thing ends. If you wanna find out who the first artist is - I mean if you're going to
create random starting points - you'd have to go to the first caveman - and he'd be pretty
creative on how he's going to wipe his *** or how he colors his hunting spear.
So because there's no clear delineations about where things start and where things end - that
definition of "original" doesn't count so do not use it when assessing the originality
of your work or the work of others.
Back to the dictionary. The second definition Oxford gives us, which is an adjective, is:
Created directly by a particular artist, not a copy or imitation.
Alright now we're getting somewhere. It's clear that even the Oxford Dictionary recognizes
that the nature of originality and creativity is not so clear-cut.
We've all heard the local band who has their first original song which is essentially one
long Silverchair riff with like 15 bad notes in it.
The point being - even the dictionary doesn't state exactly how different something has
to be - it just has not to be an exact copy copy copy to be original.
The concept of influences is pretty strong in my mind and it's probably strong in yours
too. Elenabob mentioned cultural definitions of words so, in America at least, I think
we all know that every artist has some sort of inspiration or influence. I know who mine
are: I'm influenced by Chino Moreno, I used to want to be Peter Steele and everybody,
every creative person is the same they all, at some point, had an idol. Every kid has
an idol. You want to be someone, like, you want to be - not just anyone - but that specific
person. Of course, you can't be that person because... you're different.
But the point is the flame of that artist transmitted to you and now you have to take
your little flame and develop it and nurture it and carry it in a similar way that from
Buddha to Mahakashyapa the transmission of dharma was passed. Just like a young kid who
sees an amazing art show or music performance - concert - are gonna wanna pick up an instrument
and play. And ya they gotta put their time in..
So another thing mentioned in the video was that the more you do, just a great volume
of work, you're gonna take all the things you've learned, all your inspiration, put
em into practice and eventually carry that torch so you're far beyond all the people
who quit a long time ago. So if you switch everything back now you become a point of
origin. You're not the original but now you're a new point to where your flame is bright
enough to light the candles of others, to inspire others, to warm hearts.
Back to the dictionary. The third definition we're gonna consider is Oxford's own noun
variant of the word "original" which is:
Something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies.
In that sense your rough draft is the original. Your brainstorm is the original and your final
published work is merely a derivative, a knockoff, an incremental improvement.
It's pretty clear that language can fail you in your quest to understand the creative life,
the creative process or yourself as a creative being.
You need to think of the word "originality" or any word more like a poet and give it meaning
rather than trying to define your world in bricks of words.
Look, I think being creative is about taking what you got and making something out of it.
That can be your very body or mind and heart and spirit or a block of wood and chopping
things away until you get a sculpture.
In the TED talk comments I wrote that you can't create something by being purely negative
but that's not true because, again, in sculpture or in meditation where you drop all your attachments
and thoughts and you expose your true being creativity can come from a negative process.
But regardless if you're creating negatively or positively I would like you to go out and
actually make something because you're probably going to use both methods.
For example, if you're writing a song, you have a rough draft and then you want to start
cutting out stuff that isn't going to work. Or that especially happens in mixing where
you do subtractive EQ or even in arranging - a lot of dance music will build up a big
section and then cut out parts so they can lead into that big drop at the end.
The point is don't get bogged down by definitions. And if you do have to work within certain
parameters, use that to fuel your creativity instead of becoming a crippling inhibition.
Guys, in the comments section I want you to let me know how you define creativity and
originality.
And then how would you define copying and plagiarism?
And really, how far does one have to go back to be original? let me know down there.
And lastly, have I convinced you that an original work can be derivative or built on a previous
idea?
Look I really hope you guys enjoyed this video. If you liked it give it a thumbs up, subscribe
and check out my other videos - THANKS!