Only a mediocre artist considers originality to be sufficient. Originality - by which I mean: novelty of theoretical conception - is the cardinal virtue of the mediocre artist; the incompetent critic; the well-cowed, cowardly art consumer. For creator and spectator alike, originality is the easy way out. So long as one can squint and say, "Well, I haven't seen that before" - one never needs to reach for anything higher or deeper.
If it can be claimed to be original, one never has to defend or explain why a thing is good.
3 comments:
I like this one. Maybe because I never create anything original.
I like this one. Maybe because I never create anything original.
Thanks, Leah!
Originality's nothing to be proud of. Heck, I'd say ESPECIALLY if a person can't say what they think is good about what they've done!
I love these smugsters who make a point of how original their little thing is that they just made, and can't even tell you why it is or isn't supposed to be any good.
Mind you, I'm not against originality. I don't want to send a wrong impression! If an artist produces a work of brilliant and thrilling power and vibrancy, it's fine with me if it's also somewhat novel in its purely theoretical aspects. Nothing wrong with that! Originality's harmless, it's just no substitute for actual merit.
If the best thing that can be said about a work is to praise its originality, either the artist sucks or the critic does.
Post a Comment