Abstract
This paper explores the intricacies of the notion of originality in today’s context. It deals with the hardships of evaluating art, because art is inherently subjective. The paper provides a brief overview of how art has been evaluated throughout the centuries based on the subjective concept of worth. It explains how technological advancements helped bring new art forms into the world, namely, photography and cinema. Despite the fact that these art forms are quite new, compared to literature or sculpturte, for instance, they do possess a great deal of value, especially to those who can relate to them. Today, the value of art is measured by its originality. The concept of originality is tightly connected to the term ‘copyright’, as the latter was based on the former. However, the lines between the original and unoriginal content have begun to gradually blur, due to the impact of film. The paper further delves into the question of defining originality when it comes to cinema and tries to answer the question, whether true originality lies within the director’s intent or the art making process.
Keywords: art, value, originality, cinema.
Throughout the centuries, human mind has been continuously perprelexed with a matter of value. Humanity has succeeded in assigning measurable value to all things used by it: natural resources, medicine, food, other living creatures. Even human relationships can be defined in terms of their value to an individual. And the value of these things has mostly gone unchanged over the centuries, for human beings will always be in need of things that provide them with shelter, nourishment, health, and rest, as well as companionship of other human beings. Yet there is one thing, or, more accurately, a whole multitude of things of one specific sort, that is much harder to define in terms of its apparent value: art. Humanity has struggled with the notion of evaluating art for thousands of years now, and a clear line still has not been drawn. What was perceived as a priceless masterpiece by ancient Greeks could be deemed worthless by a scholar from Middle Ages, who only had appreciation for creativity based on Biblical lore. And, in reverse, had the masters of the Renaissance laid eyes on the works by Andy Warhol, it is quite possible and even probable that they would have been confused by this kind of art, or might even be dismissive of it. What constitutes precious and valuable art today, especially modern art pieces, could very well be thrown in the garbage in two hundred years. Even Mona Lisa, as unlikely as that sounds, may one day become obsolete.
However, let us put aside the struggles of our ancestors or successors and focus on the modern times. Surely, the art that has passed the test of time is considered the most precious, especially this concerns painting, architecture, sculpture, literature, music. However, there are relatively new art forms that have only been fully developed quite recently and are, in fact, still developing to this day, because as opposed to classic art, which still pretty much uses the same tools as it did centuries ago, these art forms were created based on technological revolution that had begun in the 19th century throughout the globe. The invention of camera constituted the first step for the art of photography and its subsequent evolution gave us the art of film, beloved now by hundreds of millions of people all over the world. Compared to architecture, for instance, photography and cinema have not been around for too long, and there are still some people who treat these art forms with contempt and scorn and insist that they do not hold a candle to a literary classic or a mural on the walls of an ancient temple. That would be an example of a subjective opinion, yet still an opinion shared by many.
Subjectivity lies at the heart of art evaluation. Art is no chemistry or mathematics, it cannot be counted in numbers or depicted in graphs. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is art. Each art piece is created for an individual interpretation, for as soon as it leaves the hands of its master and is presented to the public, it no longer belongs to its creator alone. It is now property of every person who sees, hears, reads, or touches it and experiences something in the process. Every individual who interprets the piece in some way, who has thoughts and opinions on the piece, even if they are very different from those of its creator, becomes a co-owner of the piece in their own right.
Therefore, an art piece that is perceived as pointless and distasteful by one person, could have helped someone else through pain or struggle, or might have even saved their life, as art often does for those suffering from depression. So, where does that leave us in terms of understanding the worth of today’s art? Is it based on plain subjectivity with no common objective denominator in sight? As it turns out, there is a common denominator, after all. That is not to say that there is a universally applicable formula that could be used in order to determine art’s value. Yet there is a concept that is closely tied to the notion of value when it comes to creations of human mind. The concept of originality was created by humanity in order to assist it in separating valuable creations, based on new original ideas and genuine creativity, from their copies and repetitions. It is the understanding of originality that helped society come up with the idea of copyright, the sole purpose of which is to protect originality. For once, humanity managed to agree on something: originality is the foundation of true art and without it art would simply devolve into an endless cycle of plagiarism and repetition.
The comprehesion of these two correlated concepts – originality and copyright – helped humanity to establish the evaluation scale aimed at separating precious and valuable creations from the lackluster ones. And they did serve their purpose quite efficiently for a while. However, recently the lines have begun to blur. Once again, we are faced with a challenge of defining art, because the foundation that we had built our perception on – the notion of originality – is not as strict now as it used to be. The lines have begun to blur, because one art form in particular started to pose a challenge to the pre-conceived beliefs of what is and is not valuable when it comes to art. The art of film has shown time and time again that it refuses to conform to standards of originality that used to exist before. And since the influence of cinema as an art form keeps growing day by day, the challenge that it poses to the perception of originality cannot be ignored.
When it comes to art of film, it is quite difficult to pinpoint the true meaning of originality in today’s context because cinema is breaking all the rules right now. We are currently witnessing the golden age of remakes, prequels, sequels, and screen adaptations of pre-existing material, such as books, television shows, comic books, videogames, and so on and so forth. The number of films being made and released in the cinemas based on original scripts is frighteningly small, and those that do manage to miraculously make it to the viewer are now mostly met with scathing reviews and dissatisfaction of the audience. This, in turn, provides no further incentive for the studios to finance such films, when there is a much bigger box office revenue to be obtained from a fifth Spiderman film or a Harry Potter prequel. At some point, the audiences have become mistrustful and wary of original stories, unwilling to give them a chance, even if they are actually good.
With that in mind, how does one define originality in today’s cinema? Or is there no originality left at all? Surely, that depends on how one perceives originality. If one tries to limit originality solely to the intention of the artist, then it might seem like originality has taken a backseat to profitability. If one looks at originality exclusively through the prism of the finished product, it becomes rather difficult to deny that continuing, retelling or remaking the stories that the audiences have grown to love before, due to the efforts of previous directors, is usually more beneficial than trying to create something entirely unique based on one’s own vision. The two evident examples of this consistent pattern would be J.J.Abrams and the Wachowski sisters, the renowned Hollywood directors representing the opposite ends of the creativity spectrum.
On one hand, there is J.J.Abrams, a hugely successful director, who has built his success on directing two big screen reboots of the classic television show ‘Star Trek’ and the latest prequel to the iconic ‘Star Wars’ series. They were three very exquisitely, skillfully made films, which do great honor to their respective sagas. None of them were based on their director’s original ideas or concepts. Both of these worlds, sets of characters, and mythologies had been created before by other people. All these films were enormous box office successes. On the other hand, there are the Wachowski sisters, who prefer to create new original stories. And yet both their latest directorial efforts – ‘Cloud Atlas’ and ‘Jupiter Ascending’ – performed underwhelmingly at box office, despite their unique premises and big budgets having been spent on both films. It seems that today, if one looks at originality from the standpoint of the expected outcome, there is little appreciation for originality in cinema.
However, there is another way of approaching the matter of originality. If one believes that originality lies within the process of creation of art, as opposed to its intent, then there is only one conclusion to be drawn: originality in art of film is plentiful and thriving. With the possibilities presented to the directors by the inclusion of newest technological advancements in the art making process, cinema is currently enjoying its peak. And it is only expected to keep improving! Modern directors are using tools, which could not possibly be imagined a mere two decades ago. For instance, James Cameron has completely revolutionized the motion capture technology with his groundbreaking film ‘Avatar’, whereas George Miller, on the other hand, demonstrated great originality during the filming of his latest success ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’. Despite the film being a prequel to the original story, the creative process around it has been widely praised and regarded as revolutionary, since the director has opted for extensive use of practical effects and real scenery, as opposed to CGI and green screen. The risk paid off: the film triumphed at the 2016 Academy Awards with six Oscars. The above serves to prove that true originality can be found in every film and every story, whether it is based on pre-existing source or is the continuation of a classic story. The film is original, if it is created originally. Therefore originality in cinema is not diminished by comic book adaptations or a galore of prequels: it is only enriched by it.
Bibliography
Julie C. Van Camp, “Originality in Postmodern Appropriation Art,” in The Journal of Arts
management, Law, and Society. California State University, Long Beach, 2010.
Selma Kraft, “Content, Form, and Originality,” in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, Vol. 44, No. 4. Siena College, 1986.
Peter Kivy, “Aesthetic Aspects and Aesthetic Qualities”, in The Journal of Philosophy, Vol.
65, No. 4. Rutgers University, 1968.
Giovanni Marzorati, “Art in the (re)making,” in Art News, Vol. 85, No. 91. New York,
2006.
Harry Osborne, “The concept of creativity,” in British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 19. London,
1979.
Joe Gatt, “Motion Capture Actors: Body Movement Tells the Story,” in NY Castings. New
York, 2014.
