I just read a really interesting Forbes interview with Austin Kleon, author of Steal Like an Artist, which is about”the idea that all creative work is iterative, no idea is original and all creators and their output are a sum of inspirations and heroes from whom they appropriate and the ideas and content they choose to remix and reimagine as their own body of work.”
photo credit: marklarson
For those of you reading who like to create– whether you’re a writer, a musician, a visual artist, etc.– do you think this is true? Is there truly nothing new under the sun?
In my “swipe file” I’d love to have the following: John Green, Leif Enger, Peter Beagle, Markus Zusak, Melina Marchetta, Billy Collins, C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling. If I could be one big melting pot of all that brilliance, I’d have a bestseller for sure!!
How about you?
JACKIE LEA SOMMERS 
As a musician and beginning webdesigner I usually try to think out of the box from what already is. However, in my experience, no matter how hard I try I always end up finding that there is some element of my compostion/design that reflects the motif/flow of another artists previous work. As I think about it, it’s like genetics. Technically all our genes are borrowed from someone else. We just happen to blend them in a new way that may reflect our parents in someways while at the same time we are still new. Applied to creativity it means that we may have new ideas, but they are built off the work of others in new combinations of already proven patterns.
Certainly all of our creations are influenced by those who inspire us, but I have no doubt there is still lots of “originality” out there…..
I think that by the very nature of using all our resources–what we’ve read, seen, felt; what we’ve learned from our culture; the collective unconscious, etc.–and making something new out of them IS original. No one can write quite like you, or quite like me. We are products of all our influences, and that in turn comes out in our creations. I also think that generation after generation has thought there’s nothing new out there, but there is always something new to learn, in my opinion.
I thought I was going to be so smart and original with what I said, and Tina wrote what I was thinking. Just proves a point, given this particular topic, I guess!
I have to respectfully disagree with you, Tina, while in some way also agree. There are a lot of elements to this question, but a quick counter argument to your claim is this: no one’s (literal) voice is quite like mine, but if I just sing an exact note-by-note rendition of “Hallelujah,” it is not creative despite the fact that it is in one way unique. Cover songs are a helpful way of looking at this issue, in fact: Jeff Buckley’s cover of “Hallelujah” is so far from Leonard Cohen’s original that it becomes his own song; Rufus Wainwright’s, on the other hand, is just a derivative of John Cale’s rendition. The act of using your own unique voice is not enough to make something original.
I think evolution and inspiration are the core values of the creative process. This shows up in the food world all the time, often resulting in a famous chef’s signature dish. Ferran Adria is said to have recreated cuisine almost single-handedly. What is lost in that claim is the fact that most of his flavor pairings are traditional Spanish flavors. His evolution was to change textures and introduce surprise as a tangible ingredient. Radically creative, yet (in context) comfortably familiar.
I feel like the creative process is a tension between imagination and mechanics, and the irony is that examining the mechanics – or the axioms of your preferred style – is where the greatest evolutions can occur: Does a story have to be told in sequence? Does this canvas have to portray something familiar? Can I make raspberries the texture of glass?
I absolutely agree. As a writer, seminary student, and musician I cannot think of a time where what I’ve written or created has been original. I may have added flair or a unique addition, but in reality it’s most like adding a single garnish to a 7-course meal and calling it unique and different.
In reality, in my personal life I’ve revised and reorganized what has already been done by many before me. Perhaps I’ve cleaned up something that was messy, perhaps I’ve added a garnish that really “makes the dish” (so to speak), but the audacity to call it “original” in the pure sense of the word.
All this being said, remaking something done well before and doing well again with a delightful twist or unique characteristic is many times refreshing and useful to reinvigorate the love for that thing that has been forgotten or diminished.
*but it’s audacious…
Yikes…and I call myself a writer… 🙂
I understand what you’re saying, Steve. I would agree with you that my singing an exact note-by-note rendition of a song is not creative, even though I’m using my voice that no one else has. But I have the ability to create something unique, not rote, even though the parts may not be original. I don’t know if I can even say clearly what I’m thinking! I think my real worry is that we will start thinking that “it’s already been done,” and it hasn’t, in my opinion.
Jackie started a good discussion! And thanks for making me think a little more deeply, Steve.