The Infinity in Originality

When you think about something deemed “original,” what do you think about? Perhaps you speculated something along the lines of “something unprecedented?” In all, it is simply a question I ask out of curiosity. Across several disciplines, the question of originality is a widely debated topic, and each of these disciplines defines originality differently. In the sciences, originality typically refers to substances pure of any hybridity or human influence, or the first generation. But what about the arts? Some artists define originality as a product being “one-of-a-kind.” Others say originality is the uniqueness of each person’s interpretations and conclusions drawn from a precedent. Perhaps there has not been a concrete definition of originality in the arts because the objects of judgement are so personal- “personal” in the sense that it is a natural tendency for artists to be emotionally attached to their creations. To students of other disciplines, that statement sounds like a sort of joke. However, as an architecture student, it is reality. We spend hours toiling on our creation assignments, so it is natural for us to be inspired by our personal experiences and incorporate those feelings into our studio work. Then, when a classmate tweaks our idea to make it their own, we feel cheated. This is a common nightmare of any arts student. However, if you never take any risks in sharing your work, you have less exposure to feedback, which means less personal growth. After all, what is the point of bringing something into this world, if you are not willing to share it, or have it built upon?

Anyhow, I agree with both definitions of originality provided by artists. I agree that something can be called “original” if there is something unlike it. I also agree that something can be still be called “original” if a new idea or purpose is applied to what that thing first was. An example of this is a hallway. Despite how ridiculous it sounds, a hallway was actually an innovation from the past, since it was a major step-up from caveman days and the one-room buildings. When the concept of a typical hallway was first introduced, a hallway was considered an original creation. However, as time passed, hallways have come to be incorporated in people’s basic idea of a building, and the originality of the hallway itself has long been forgotten or overlooked. But does this mean that the idea of the hallway no longer deserves to be called original? Or is its originality considered part of the originality of the building itself? Or does originality related to time? Or is this a question that cannot be resolved? I think that the hallway was original when it first became a thing. But I also think that the hallway can still be deemed “original” even when it became a part of newer buildings because there were original ideas behind the logic of its shape, design, and location within that building. In addition to that, another building with a similar hallway can still be considered original if they took the bits they liked about that hallway and incorporated it with other ideas that they liked. This process goes on forever in the arts discipline, and originality is infinitely discussed. In the end, I would say the overarching truth about originality is that it is the product from making something our own, whether it is a precedent for innovations to come, or if it followed a precedent. What would you say originality is? And do you think it is ethically acceptable to only call precedents “original?”