“Nothing good is original, and nothing original is good.”
That’s a big declaration, so I split it in half. Last week, I spoke about originality and the merits thereof. This time, I ask what is Art?
Good Art
That’s a question that could be an entire separate blogging experience in and of itself. It’s worth bearing in mind that Art is often defined by the dominant culture and social mores of the time. It’s extremely open to flux. Some media proprieties we take for granted today would not have been created for public consumption 100 years ago. More’s the pity.
For all the ills and evils of a highly connected world, it allows more readers access to more authors than they might ever have dreamed of. To more stories from more perspectives, to diverse takes on typical tropes. To original fiction.
Originality is defined as being new, being fresh, being novel. Last time, I considered that originality is not necessarily virtuous, in and of itself. This time, I want to throw a bit more depth on that.
‘Original’ will be very different for different people.
So will ‘good’.
The Purpose of Art
For many, good art is that which they enjoy. But the media you enjoy and consume is heavily influenced by your personality, culture, socioeconomic status and individual life experiences. I’m indifferent to spins wheel Game of Thrones, a lot of people enjoy it. Does that make it good? Is the purpose of art to be enjoyable? To teach you something, make you feel something, make you think? And who gets to define that?
I don’t really know where I am going with this. Or more accurately, I don’t really mind. It’s more about the journey. We all end up at the same destination, by different routes. But I sure as all-heck think that ‘good’ and ‘original’ are incredibly fluid terms, subject to much variation by the life experiences of the speaker.
Is original good, and good original? It’s an interesting question.
Here’s another. Does it matter?
Yours,
Elmswood <3
