The Challenge Of Being Original

Is it still practical to think that an artist of any stripe can be confined to his or her own ideas when it comes to the creation of art? Or has the mass distribution of images and ideas that has been made possible over the past few centuries by photography, cinema, television, and of course the Internet made avoiding the influence of other creative minds impossible?

Every artist I've ever known has been influenced by some other artist, and some of the best have managed to synthesize what has influenced them into a new aesthetic - not simply creating a variation on a theme or adding an embellishment or two, but actually creating something so unique that it could stand on it's own.

Most, of course, do not. Most simply imitate, and though the time-worn cliche states that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, the reality is that while an imitator may strike gold once in awhile, it's only the originators that truly are remembered and revered.

Think in terms of music. The Rolling Stones (aka the band that would not die) took various elements that influenced them and formulated a new sound, angrier and edgier than the blues and far more blatantly sexual than the croonings of Adam Faith and Cliff Richard - Jagger and company turbo-charge skiffle while adding minor chords and Mick's swaggering sneer is probably the simplest way to put it - and since then thousands and thousands of imitators have sprung up.

But the likes of the Bluesicians, The Shades 5, Sonny Stewart & The Dynamos, etc., are, if not completely forgotten, then remembered primarily as cover bands that could never crack out of the shell they were born in. They could not come up with their own twist on the theme, or maybe they just didn't want to.

Imitation is flattery, and that's fine, but it's also drudgery. Imitation is the suburbs, fast food, and mass-marketed rebellion (insert reference to Hot Topic here).

Being Derivative is the bane of any artist's existence. In the years before the mass dissemination of ideas it was no doubt easier to create something new and clever. However, when you consider that most trades, and thus most skills, were handed down from family member to family member or learned in a guild of some sort, then it is self-evident that derivative was the norm well before the existence of the printing press.

Most artists served decades long apprenticeships to masters, carefully studying their techniques, and even working on pieces that would be signed by the master, which meant that these artist spent their time as apprentices learning to create exactly as their masters.

Somehow though, many of the apprentices were able to break free from the parameters established by the guilds or studios they worked in and create something innovative. The Durers, Homers, Turners and so many more all worked as apprentices and all managed to break free and realise their own unique visions.

Which shows that, even if an artist is hampered by an overabundance of influences, that it in no way means an artist's ability to evolve and innovate will be hindered.

Which leads us to a question that was posed to me the other day: "When am I going to get off my ass and paint something a little more original than flowers or women?"

I really wish I had some other answer than "Never" for that question, but honestly, I like flowers and I like women, and I paint what I like.

And cats, so maybe I'll paint a cat.