it's not really time to take a pill down your throat for learning thread chairs cos a call comes to keep your mouth shut.

The dilemma of originality

Sunday, September 18, 2011 1 comments

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.