HOME | DD
aesthetique — Defiant
Published: 2004-05-25 10:18:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 3000; Favourites: 67; Downloads: 227
Redirect to original
Description
There is no such thing as originality.The crux of ones being is a collected identity based on experience and influence from birth to death, there is no grand narrative and no whole. We simply exist through experience and episodes.
Related content
Comments: 31
I agree completely. We're not original just a different mix of the pieces thta could make us up
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This statement is almost annoying as a debate I had the other day with people about all selfless acts being selfish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i completly agree with this and i think that the people that obsess over being original only end up making them selves look stupid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wow. I love it. I love how you've got the statement that everything is not original, a product of everything, and put it on there like an an advertisement, as if you're trying to put the ideas of postmodernism to us, yet still questioning the idea by suggesting that postmodernism is simply consumerism. I don't know if that's what you intended, but that's what I got from it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your logic doesn't follow. Your concept is good and your conclusion/individual statements are correct but your reasoning is blind at best.
People experience different things and experience similar things differently. Since everyone does not live out the same things in the same way, the sum of their experiences (aka themselves) are different if even by slight nuances. Originality does not have to be abstract (i.e. achieved from nothing) because everything cannot come from nothing (zero =/= infinity). Originality is defined as something different and we are all different if we count every factor in the equation of ourselves so therefore everyone is original in total.
I agree with everything you said that does not contradict the logic above.
Being different sums is precisely what makes us different however we are the same in being different sums. That's why originality is banal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Damn it, I hate when people are right about these stuff. Very nice
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So...
uh...
Does this mean everything is the same because nothing has ever been original?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
there is no originality if you are being absolutist about it, but the word is also used as a marker for creativity. 'original' doesn't mean 'unique', but FROM ORIGIN. it's true everyone's influenced but that sets a parameter in which creativity can still be predominant. i find your reasoning quite simplistic and boring. this deviation is banal.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Artistically, the work is relatively static, the "poetry" being without meter or rhyme scheme. Though no attempt at visual dynamics has been made, a clear message is evident, but without much emphasis from design elements other than white on black typeface. Overall, a relatively practical and undeveloped concept, which fits the theme of the work perfectly, though rather uninterestingly. A lot of potential unused.
Philosophically, though experiences common, the sum of them is unique to each individual, for no one can experience the world as any other has or will.
Thus the preception of one is original from any other that has or will experience the world.
All in all, I'd say this belongs apart of literature, not visual poetry, as it seems the focus of this piece is in it's written content, as the visual approach seems relatively uninspired and takes a backseat to the written content. An interesting piece nonetheless.
As literature, definitely something to read. As visual poetry, a relatively mundane piece.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
love the thought put in2 this, even though its jst words
i totally believe this!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
true, true, true, true..*words speed into infinity*
and I never thought of it that way before.
Thanks for the enlightment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
More often than not it is very evident that one's enviroment is often a product of them in an indirect early form, and then evidently the influence of their presence in their enviroment creates a feedback loop which influences them to change. I think your statement would be correct however if it were not for the fact that most "shitty enviroments" are created out of some form of ignorance and neglect of the well being of nature and human nature. Hence the feedback loop.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and thus we have the hanging of meaning upon that which may have no intentional meaning. as far as i am concerned, there is no correct or incorrect upon the text in the deviation, it is merely open to viewer criticism and interpretation.
However, i do agree with the "shitty environments" being created out of ignorance and neglect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm if you didn't intend on having a definitive meaning being applied to your artwork then why did you use such "difinitive statements"? Heh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Besides being the great debate, by your definition one's intellectual property is not.
If I have to give credit where credit is due...
Fuck. Let me make a list.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was thinking about this yesterday, good job.
Actually what I wannnted to say was "very original" heh
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Fortune cookie wisdom, IMO of course.
Orginality is our unique interpretation of the reality we are immersed in. When uniqueness is shelved for recicled messages (like in this case, IMO) that's when originaly ceases. And yet, even in those, this, case, originality remains: because each one of us billions, no matter if twins or clones or a by-product of identical environments, it is still somehow different in his or her interpretation of the perceived reality. And that is the beauty of life and of humanity: no matter what, no matter how hard we all try to assimilate and be assimilated, we remain, deep down, always original, and therefore an ever ending wonder for those who care to listen to our originality.
C
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That is beautiful. I should probably say something more interesting, but I couldn't say nothing, sorry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wow. thankyou.
the response iv gotten is unexpected.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love it.
The bluntness of it all, the way you put it so simply.
Definite fav.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The idea that there is no Grand Narrative is itself the Grand Narrative the idea claims doesn't exist; therefore, it is a self-negative Narrative, an internally contradictory paradox.
"the only grand narrative is that there isn't one"
"the truth is that there is no truth"
Same internal contradiction, same self-negation.
Interesting nonetheless, however.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It could then be said, therefore, that, rather than there being no grand narrative, and only local lesser narratives, that perhaps the one grand cultural narrative is the sum of all fragmented, dissonant lesser narratives.
Similarly, The Truth might well be the summation of all lesser truths, or approximations of Reality, rather than "no truth".
👍: 0 ⏩: 0