When I think about debates about originality, the debate about Avatar immediately comes to mind.

No one can really deny that it has strong similarities with previous movies such as Dancing with Wolves and Pocahontas, but some people think that this then removes it of its value.

I’d disagree. I can’t quite put my finger on why, except that most things are derivative to some extent. And Avatar tends to do things in a new way.

Interesting post.

The issue of originality – and appropriation – is one that I have been thinking about (and occasionally writing about) for quite some time. For me the focus was very much driven by the coincidence of two things. One the critique of authorship that ran through certain ‘post-modern’ theory and practice (particularly in the visual arts). The other, the codification of Moral Rights within the framework of common law copyright. The principles that underpin Moral Rights seemed to me to be the very ideas that are so clearly thrown into question by post-modern theory – in particular the notion that a work’s integrity is tied to the person of the author.

For definitions of ‘orignality’ copyright law is a fertile area for investigation. Although, literary theory and the law don’t always seem to agree on these matters.

The practice of ‘reference’ or ‘allusion’ is a long one, with an expection that one writer will be inspired by the work of another. Only yesterday I came across a discussion of this in relation to Haiku writing in the 17th C. (in “The Haiku Handbook” by William Higginson (I’d have to trawl back to find the page reference). However, here the second work only really “works” if the reader knows the reference … the originality of the work is as much in the way it changes the way we think about the work to which it refers, and may in fact ‘copy’ in some respects. It doesn’t need a ‘reference’ because we assume that all readers share the same knowledge.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Take Janice M Bostock’s poem (quoted in full in Higinson, and here ) …

wind circling into leaves

Which, being a haiku may well be thought about in terms of its seasonal reference (autumn ?). In Higginson this is the context in which this work is discussed, with some comments on the fact that it originates in Australia, so may be at odds with the core seasonal traditions and rules within haiku.

Then in a poem that almost quotes Janice in full I write a new poem to shift the season.

dry wind circling

leaves dust

A four word original poem & a five word original poem … the second quoting three of the original four words (in the same order as the original) … clearly my poem ‘copies’ Janice’s poem, but I think in an ‘original way’. At the core of the second poem is the first, it “works” because it is both “original” and because it “copies”.

Peter Anderson

As for creativity, I’ve always thought that it operates pretty much like baking a cake. The ingredients are all the different kinds of input you might open yourself up to: music, books, news, yarns at a pub, or simply going for a drive somewhere. Once all that is in the mixing bowl you’re halfway there. It just takes days, months, or years of letting the KitchenAid of your subconscious do its thing. It’s easy to see how some of the ingredients might overpower others in terms of how the end product tastes and how much it might resemble someone else’s cake. But remember, there’s a lot to be said for decorations.

I guess it all comes down to whether or not you know you are putting those ingredients into your mixing bowl (okay, okay, I’ll stop labouring under this ridiculous analogy now). If you know that you are borrowing from someone, then it’s your choice whether you do that with a heavy hand or a delicate one. But if you are unaware that you have been deeply influenced by something, then things get a bit tricky.

@Benjamin: As for the Avatar argument, I think most would agree that it is derivative. It’s whether it has added anything new to the genre that’s the sticking point. I thought the effects and the world they created was new enough (just) to cover their arse in that respect.

In terms of art and music, I define creativity as a uniqueness or a stylistic flare that is characteristic of the artist or musician. I believe pure creativity is not often found. However, if an artist can portray their message with original aspects that are unique to them, then I believe they are being original.

I think its best described using real world examples…

Kelly Clarkson’s music uses chord progressions and melodies that are used very widely in the charts today. Her music also lacks any defining or unique characteristics. The tonalities of the instruments are what you’d expect from any pop group using studio musicians. The lyrics seem to follow cliche’s about love and what not. Basically if one of her songs comes on the radio, I can’t tell its her because she sounds like everybody else.

When you compare her to an artist like The Cat Empire or Cog, these artists are using chord progressions that have been used before, but their vocal styles, tones and excecution are unique to them. Thats originality in my eyes.

I liked the post, got me thinking…

“If you know that you are borrowing from someone, then it’s your choice whether you do that with a heavy hand or a delicate one. But if you are unaware that you have been deeply influenced by something, then things get a bit tricky.”

This is an interesting point Phil. It brought to mind those lines from “Dürer: Innsbruck, 1495”, perhaps the most well known of the Malley poems: “I had read in books that art is not easy But no one warned that the mind repeats In its ignorance the vision of others.”

For me the other key reference for this issue is Borges … In light of which I sometimes wonder if the whole debate around originality often gets lost in tilting at windmills.

Instinctively I agree that awareness is a huge part of it – if artists knowingly use/draw from another work yet still manage to add something of their own, then this to me would still be ‘original’. However I think the very real problem of being creative – again which is instinctive – is that very often we can draw from sources without knowing it at the time.

Another point which I didn’t get to mention the post was whether there are different standards for different forms. Eg. in music we often hear of cover versions, modernising old plays is popular in theatre and we have films that ‘pay tribute’ to a particular director/style (although I realise these forms too have their controversies. Avatar you’ve mentioned, Men at Work/Land Down Under is another). I wonder where writing stands in all this – John Marsden’s YA retelling of Hamlet comes immediately to mind….

@Jess “However I think the very real problem of being creative – again which is instinctive – is that very often we can draw from sources without knowing it at the time.”

Yeah, it comes around to that old foe, cryptomnesia. If someone claims that they were influenced by something subconsciously, who are we to argue? Perhaps some clever statistics-minded people have come up with algorithms that can determine if a text has been copied outright, or changed slightly with the aid of a thesaurus. But how can you write a program that can search for the appropriation of an idea?

In the end I think it all comes down to the interpretation by the reader. As individuals, do we think that so-and-so has ripped off so-and-so? And then it comes down to whichever party presents the most compelling argument.

‘a truly original idea would probably be so unfamiliar as to be unreadable, an impenetrably alien artefact’

Exactly: Beckett, for example, until we decided it was familiar, and readable, and turned out in droves to chuckle. But if you’d ever met him in person, you wouldn’t be doing any chuckling. It’s the people who are original: they can’t help having whatever came before in their heads, but that doesn’t stop them being newly minted. That’s why Eric Clapton is justreally good at playing the guitar, whereas Jimi Hendrix was alien, mysterious and original.

I really like the idea of research returning to the creative work as memory!

Intellectual property is a very modern concept isn’t it? I think there’s a long tradition of writers reworking stories, e.g. Homer and Virgil with the Odyssey. In Ancient Greece dramatists aimed to put a spin on existing myth / folklore in their plays; the aim was to cleverly manipulate that material, trying to delight rather than upset the audience (who usually knew the subject inside-out).

But perhaps that’s not a good context as there’s no author to plagiarise – folk stories and myth are common property.

Anyway, I was just thinking that originality, in the sense of creating something out of thin air, wasn’t always so highly valued, or expected. I imagine it’d be less important in a culture that was always looking to its tradition for “inspiration”.

I really like the idea of research returning to the creative work as memory.

Intellectual property is a very modern concept isn’t it? I think there’s a long tradition of writers reworking stories, e.g. Homer and Virgil with the Odyssey. In Ancient Greece dramatists aimed to put a spin on existing myth / folklore in their plays; the aim was to cleverly manipulate that material, trying to delight rather than upset the audience (who usually knew the subject inside-out).

But perhaps that’s not a good context as there’s no author to plagiarise – folk stories and myth are common property.

Anyway, I was just thinking that originality, in the sense of creating something out of thin air, wasn’t always so highly valued, or expected. I imagine it’d be less important in a culture that was always looking to its tradition for “inspiration”.

Prithvi … I think you’ve flagged something quite important here. Copyright in the common law system (at least from a statutory point of view) has only just slipped over the 300 year mark (last month actually). And it was far from a universally supported law even amongst literary circles(even when the original copyright term was comparatively very short) … and the Romantic model of ‘originality’ we tend to draw on for much of our thinking in this area developed even later … Discussions of ‘originality’ in the very very new internet environment (just how old is the internet again … ?) really should try to take into consideration all those old debates about orality, literacy, printing, and the development and regulation of the book trade … not to mention those just pre-internet theoretical & practice based developments that came together in the late 60s as part of the “death of the author” argument.