I haven't have much time, it's about time to go for session. But anyways.
What is original? I would define it as a quality of action, idea, or thought which has not been performed by anyone else, and which took inspiration from others of minimal resemblance.
Herein lies a big problem which I do not resolve to solve anyway. Not that much about solving, even touching on the spirit of finding a suitable and feasible resolution is not in my consideration. Hence, I will pen a different idea to the meaning of originality to me.
The inspiration for this thought came through bboying (breakdancing). As of any creative and overtly expressive art, bboying requires the practitioner to innovate, groove, integrate. In short, be creative in a relevant way. Being irrelevant would mean something like, dancing completely out of sync with the music, or replying in a completely different language. Above all, one may have any move he likes, but if the approach and feel is not bboying-like, it loses its relevance TO OTHER PEOPLE.
This raises 2 issues:
1. The allowance of deviance within which creativity is accepted.
2. The measure of creativity.
I think I won't have time to explore the second. So just the first for now..
Imagine a world without bboying. Suddenly, out of sheer madness, a ballerina shows this on stage during a ballet performance:
I don't know what the reaction is going to be like. Sure it is crazy, surely it is extremely skillful. But surely, too there will be debates on the appropriateness of this deviance. There will be people arguing: is this ballet? what are the core concepts of ballet?
The main thing is: the approach. The approach and the feel of the video you see above does not fit the contemporary feel of ballet. This is when styles come out. That is why dances are classified to popping, locking, ballet, LA, bboying, etc.
But isn't the above common sense? Yes and no. Yes because we know that if something is different, it will be viewed as a deviance, and if there is enough of which, a new style will probably emerge.
Herein lies a problem: if there is not enough constituents of a new approach, there will not be a new style. Hence, the deviance from the old style is called 'anomaly', or rather, alienated, unapplied, unrecognized originality. There is this point when original becomes weird. A slight deviance is ok. But a huge deviance, depending on context and type of move, stands a lower chance to be accepted into the same style.
Why am I saying these "common sensical" stuff? It's due to the reason that creativity, while prized, isn't always accepted by others. And why is it not is because of the difficulty of a person (more likely the social group) to adjust to the founding of the new idea. That's why I bring in approach and feel. Things may be different, but the approach should not be too different, nor the feel of the change be too different. It's the boundary when "that's fresh!" becomes "thats err..". And in many times, a way people ostracize a certain style. And in many ways, we ostracize another person in confirmation of his style.
Implications of the group acceptance theory? (i dont know if there is such theory, just tongue in cheekily named)This group acceptance perspective triggers 2 things: the acceptability of the idea depends on the progress and stage of the group. This means that the most original idea would likely not have been accepted by the masses. So the most original would not be the most acceptably creative. Which further implies that great deviances are not "outright unacceptable", but more of "unacceptable because we can't adjust to it".
This could mean that past ideas which are rejected could be prophetically accepted today. That deviant ideas and weird perspectives in the past could just mean something awesome, fresh and acceptably original this day. Because the general consensus and public perspective, accumulated knowledge, or experience has changed over the years.
Which brings in one important thing: that one can look at all ideas and actions to be just ideas and actions in itself. Of which, qualification for complexity must be justified not by how it looks but how much it developed on assumptions it stand on. Because in one era, assumptions are different from another. So let's say there was a deviant theory in the past because it stood on different assumptions, they can be made relevant today because the assumptions are proven wrong, or viewed in a different manner.
Back to the real world with bboying. The move above, as I stated, is crazy, is high skilled. But will probably be rejected by the ballerina committee. But in bboying, it's totally loved. Why so? Because there is a frame which fits an approach to a certain form of interpretation. In this would house the appropriateness of the move. Simply put, it fits into a different style.
Then why don't I just say "style" but instead go one round to talk about approach, group acceptance, assumptions and bboying? Because I believe that the concept of style has a complex construct behind it. The reason for even trying to explore the complex construct is to look at some ethical dilemmas later on.
The first time I came in contact with something bboy related is sometime in 1999. I was 3rd grade then, extremely active, playful and easily influenced. Who isn't?
I don't remember what exactly the competition is. I think it's the gymnastics world championships. I can't say for sure, because I just googled for some significant event to be influential enough to be broadcasted on cable TV.
It wasn't me who started trying some gymnastics shit first. It was my brother. He was trying handstands, and he was FIRST GRADE. In retrospect it was pretty insane because he managed to get up and stay there for a tad longer than a second. It wasn't neat, to be sure, but it was nonetheless commendable for the first handstand attempts!
Having saw that, I believed that I could do it. Thinking that: if I can stand on my legs, why can't I stand on my hands? So down I went, but I remembered to keep my legs straight because that's how the gymnasts do it.
When you're young, you don't have the amount of knowledge you have when you grow old. You get a greater sense of the world, especially in terms of dangers and threats. All these come from injuries, accidents, flops, bloopers. But in a sense of the term, all forms of aches and pain; heart aches, emotional scars which indelibly had adverse effects on you, your actions, psyche or mind. I was without any of these then, so enabled me to look at things in an innocent, or should I say, more ignorant manner.
I looked at my batman and power ranger toy the toy basket. Picked it up, and balanced it on its hand. Then I thought that if this stupid toy which has no ability to correct its balance can balance on one hand, why can't I? After all, he really really resembles a human being! That's how I got splits too. I opened the power rangers' legs and thought: if i can stretch my arms so far, why can't I stretch my legs anywhere close to that?
So one day I was in my school's auditorium, with polished, varnished wooden planks on the floor, and a few other friends fooling around about an hour before the after noon session starts (school starts at 1pm), I suddenly decided to do the handstand. Why I knew I was going to go upside down, feel the rush of blood to my head, and stare at nothing but the ground to help my balance, I didn't know I was going to stay up there for 10 seconds. By no means it was all skill. It was mostly luck. I could do something, but I didn't realize it. It wasn't anything awesome, but it was something worth remembering. So much so, that I had it in my mind, somehow, through these 12 short years.
I can't really recount any really bboy-related experience I between then and 7th grade. Because bboying wasn't even heard of then. Nor was I interested in gymnastics at all. I mean, what I see other than the handstand were somersaults, insane combos, superhuman strength. While I got inspired by the strength part, the other 2 didn't really inspire me. I started doing pull ups in 3rd grade, and that went on till 5th grade, with decreasing frequency to the pull-up bar. By then, I could do 10 pull ups. That was all there was I guess, besides playing normal elementary school stuff. There wasn't anything dance related at all, aside from the fact that I did not want anything to do with it.
It is in light of this ignorant and innocent mind processing which allowed me to get splits and handstand by just looking at the TV. It isn't any sort of a big achievement or anything. But this very perspective which we 'grow out' of, I will come to get it back much later as I grow up. Because it has this debunking capability, mixed with determination and belief, which I found very useful to have a heart having gained a head.
The first time I had any contact with dancing was... I don't know. But the first memory of me dancing on stage was a dreadful experience in nursery and kindergarden, between 3 to 5 years old. Every year we had to perform, at least once, for some event. I'm not sure what, but just some Nursery event. I remember putting on lipstick and hair gel, the bow tie and maybe suspenders(?). I was the blur one in the group, which I still am sometimes. I didn't really like the performances because I felt somewhat embarrassed to stand in front of people who towered over me and doing irrational actions in front of them. Watching those videos bring back memories, not very fond, but surely worth remembering. I could feel the atmosphere of it all. The hanging mood and expectation of parents, especially mine, and the embarrassment of my appearance. I was wondering "don't only girls wear lipstick? why are you making me a girl now?".
But there came this experience which was the one which changed, and solidified my then resolution towards dancing. I was dancing with this board, three quarters my height, isn't very long, and I was.. half naked and had some ridiculous amount of makeup. I think I was supposed to emulate some sort of cultural dance. But I hated it. I hated the whole process of training because they were forcing me to do something that I didn't like. And worst of all, making me look like a.. cultural artifact, a state which i did NOT fancy (it may be better if they made me Alexander the great, no wait I wouldn't have known who he is..), and coercing me to do your will isn't a good way for me to remember dancing! So from that point on, I told myself that I would never have anything to do with dance.
Because it made me look stupid. Because it made me do things I don't want to. Because it advertised them and is a tool to make others happy and make me sad at the same time.
Aside from the last point, the former 2 have significant repercussions till this day. That's why to look at oneself, look at how he thinks as a child. Because he will be honest with you, and the core of his personality will never change.
does cocaine, ice, CANNABIS
ballet
sexist
anti-heavy metal music
girl-player
extremely hot tempered
1.92m
hetrosexual
UNDEROATH!!!
anti-drug campaignist
bboy
21st dec 2006 :):):)
Kyensai SEKSAY`
5/5/90
wongyuanhao
tobiasisinchinesehigh@yahoo.co.uk
Christian :D
