I think the question of what good art is and whether it should be original is a very interesting conundrum. On one hand my creative instinct tells me to rebel against every other narrative and create only shiny new stories. The other part of me yearns to recreate the classic but just in a new way, maybe because it is just the way I originally felt them in my brain and I want to represent to others like me that they exist.
Many of the creative writing classes which I have taken have advised that nothing is truly original, every story is based off of the same characteristics that you would find in every other story from the beginning of history. Instead of being completely original we are supposed to just find our original interpretation. Even my friend's who are actors have received the advice to "know who to steal from" when it comes to their acting techniques and styles.
These bits and pieces of unoriginal content put together to create new art is a noble enough cause in my opinion. However, there is something to be said of the genuine quality of the original when the express purpose of the new art is to perfectly copy the first piece. An artist recreated a Van Gogh piece realistically and was faced with massive backlash. AlthoughVan Gogh was not entirely original, many artists have painted French cafe's, it was the way in which he painted that was the allure of the work. For another artist to paint the same scene but with more technical scene and a realistic style, it removed all of the attraction of the previous piece. A realistic style is something that we can see with our own eyes while the eye of Van Gogh is something we can only experience through his artwork.
An artist should know how to steal, take the idea of painting a cafe from somebody else, however it is the original lens that you bring to the table which separates it from corporate mass production and creates the special atmosphere of good art.
 |
| Van Gogh |
| Haixia Liu |
No comments:
Post a Comment