Original Thoughts, are they possible?
- Thread starter Never
- Start date
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
I don't think there are any original thoughts.. I think we simply rediscover what others have thought before and modify it to our situation and personality.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
lavender is a steaming sex-goddess. Never hasn't had sex yet and is merely an eager and willing supplicant.
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~lavender is a steaming sex-goddess. Never hasn't had sex yet and is merely an eager and willing supplicant.
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
every thought is original because of the circumstance in which it was formed and by the person that thought it
if i think blue right now for no particular reason its original because nobody has thought that thought in this circumstance and if they did well then its still original because they arent me
i like your av too never its YUM and OUCH at the same time Hmmm perhaps that wasnt an original thought though because i was just thinking the same thing earlier today ... darn thats my theory out the window
if i think blue right now for no particular reason its original because nobody has thought that thought in this circumstance and if they did well then its still original because they arent me
i like your av too never its YUM and OUCH at the same time
Hmmm perhaps that wasnt an original thought though because i was just thinking the same thing earlier today ... darn thats my theory out the windowshadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Well, there was Dylan -
"All the good books've been written, the great sayings said." But then he proved it wrong for about three years.
"All the good books've been written, the great sayings said." But then he proved it wrong for about three years.
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Can you give an example?
Not only do I see a lack of original thought in American culture - I see a lack of interest in original thought. In many ways I see the ideas of the 'art' and entertainment sectors as being extremely derivative - and this is, traditionally, where original thoughts are first voiced.
Not only do I see a lack of original thought in American culture - I see a lack of interest in original thought. In many ways I see the ideas of the 'art' and entertainment sectors as being extremely derivative - and this is, traditionally, where original thoughts are first voiced.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Predictability!
As big business has devoured the forms of mass "art," the cultural bureaucrats try to render the returns for said art predictable. On Wall Street, predictable revenues, cash flow, profits are all extremely important. If you take the stars of several enormously popular movies and put them in a storey written by a best-selling author, directed by someone who always completes their pictures on time and under budget, you can tell investors you've got a hit on your hands. You can be wrong, but no one can fault you for signing off on that project because the "elements" were all blue chip. That's why "pitches" consist of saying your script idea is "TITANIC" meets "PRIVATE RYAN" when you're trying to sell a merchant marine at war movie. No one wants to be original; there's no money pedigree on that. And from the artists' perspectives, why try to be original if no one wil read/watch/listen to the damned thing? Let's just "sample" prior hits. This civilization eats its own shit every day in every way. I suspect some conservatives will agree with me. Perhaps not.Never said:
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
Re: Predictability!
Art will be created regardless of how lucrative it is. Van Gogh died in poverty. Many of the "great" writers and artists made little if anything off their work.
Even if corporations took control of everything (which they may, unfortunately), people would still create. They would still make art. Though it's nice when it sells, the motivation behind creating it isn't money. If it were all about money, then Picasso could've become a merchant or a stock broker.
shadowsource said:
Art will be created regardless of how lucrative it is. Van Gogh died in poverty. Many of the "great" writers and artists made little if anything off their work.
Even if corporations took control of everything (which they may, unfortunately), people would still create. They would still make art. Though it's nice when it sells, the motivation behind creating it isn't money. If it were all about money, then Picasso could've become a merchant or a stock broker.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
That's a nice thought, Laurel.
But the marketing of marketing (the way people now devour as "news" what movie sold best on the weekend) has changed peoples' consciousness. It's very hard for young artists to work in a vaccuum. They are constantly confronted by what seems to be working, and they have to work the market themselves, or there's little point in bothering to make the work. Painters have to suck up to gallery owners all year, filmmakers have to get funded, musicians need support to be heard. The hot new painters and sculptors in NYC tend more and more to be cute, photogenic fluffies (one of them a friend of mine, who's talented) who can be featured in articles more prominently than their work.
And everyone's friends are experts on the biz, whichever it is. Commercialism is epidemic.
Where people make stuff for fun, with less regard for profit: The internet.
But the marketing of marketing (the way people now devour as "news" what movie sold best on the weekend) has changed peoples' consciousness. It's very hard for young artists to work in a vaccuum. They are constantly confronted by what seems to be working, and they have to work the market themselves, or there's little point in bothering to make the work. Painters have to suck up to gallery owners all year, filmmakers have to get funded, musicians need support to be heard. The hot new painters and sculptors in NYC tend more and more to be cute, photogenic fluffies (one of them a friend of mine, who's talented) who can be featured in articles more prominently than their work.
And everyone's friends are experts on the biz, whichever it is. Commercialism is epidemic.
Where people make stuff for fun, with less regard for profit: The internet.
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
Dont know about original thoughts but I take original photos.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
Re: That's a nice thought, Laurel.
You make such a good grumpy old man from someone I doubt is over 40!
I don't share your cynicism. You're equating money with success, and assuming there was a magic time when artistic merit guaranteed a fat paycheck - a mystical NeverNeverLand where the population is cultured and enlightened. If anything, people today are MORE educated than ever before. Doesn't mean their tastes are more refined, though.
There are a great many musicians who make fine livings on independent labels. There are authors on small indie publishers who sell enough to support themselves. They don't make millions, but is that really the measure of success? Is an artist's work less valid because it's not in the NYT Bestseller list? I don't happen to think so. Is it Corporate America's fault if a band would rather take a huge advance from a record conglomerate than stay on an indie and earn their money one record at a time? If an artist can photograph the way he likes and make a living selling his work in small galleries, or photograph Wegman dogs or babies and make millions, and he CHOOSES to pander to popular tastes, isn't that his choice? His greed overrode any desire to make "important" art. His loss, his choice. I think that says less about the commercialization of our culture and more about the character of that particular artist. If anything, it's pretty amazing to live in a time when one can paint or write for someone besides the Government or the Church and make a decent living. That's not always been the case.
There are a great many artists who create what they like and make a living off their art. You don't hear about them, but they exist everywhere. Artists who are so busy trying to be the "it" thing will never be great, IMHO. Miro painted what HE wanted to paint. David Hockney chooses his subject matter, his media. If it happens to become "in" for a bit, fine. If not, that's fine too. But "the scene" has never been a magic breeding ground for talent. Articles in magazines, schmoozing with celebs..that has nothing to do with art and everything to do with the business side.
Commercialism is only an "epidemic" if becoming commercially successful is your goal. If your main concern is "making it" and "being Big". That's a choice you yourself as an artist make. It's a rare person who can create insightful, provocative, compelling art and carry a fat wallet. Corporations help you become big, then take a chunk of what you make. But they don't force anything down anyone's throats. If you sign a contract with the Devil, only you are to blame.
shadowsource said:
You make such a good grumpy old man from someone I doubt is over 40!
I don't share your cynicism. You're equating money with success, and assuming there was a magic time when artistic merit guaranteed a fat paycheck - a mystical NeverNeverLand where the population is cultured and enlightened. If anything, people today are MORE educated than ever before. Doesn't mean their tastes are more refined, though.
There are a great many musicians who make fine livings on independent labels. There are authors on small indie publishers who sell enough to support themselves. They don't make millions, but is that really the measure of success? Is an artist's work less valid because it's not in the NYT Bestseller list? I don't happen to think so. Is it Corporate America's fault if a band would rather take a huge advance from a record conglomerate than stay on an indie and earn their money one record at a time? If an artist can photograph the way he likes and make a living selling his work in small galleries, or photograph Wegman dogs or babies and make millions, and he CHOOSES to pander to popular tastes, isn't that his choice? His greed overrode any desire to make "important" art. His loss, his choice. I think that says less about the commercialization of our culture and more about the character of that particular artist. If anything, it's pretty amazing to live in a time when one can paint or write for someone besides the Government or the Church and make a decent living. That's not always been the case.
There are a great many artists who create what they like and make a living off their art. You don't hear about them, but they exist everywhere. Artists who are so busy trying to be the "it" thing will never be great, IMHO. Miro painted what HE wanted to paint. David Hockney chooses his subject matter, his media. If it happens to become "in" for a bit, fine. If not, that's fine too. But "the scene" has never been a magic breeding ground for talent. Articles in magazines, schmoozing with celebs..that has nothing to do with art and everything to do with the business side.
Commercialism is only an "epidemic" if becoming commercially successful is your goal. If your main concern is "making it" and "being Big". That's a choice you yourself as an artist make. It's a rare person who can create insightful, provocative, compelling art and carry a fat wallet. Corporations help you become big, then take a chunk of what you make. But they don't force anything down anyone's throats. If you sign a contract with the Devil, only you are to blame.
I think there are many examples of orginal thought in the US. Take for instance stem cell research. Or the guy at MIT who is inserting art into the genetic matter of a cell. I think it might indicate there are imaginations wandering into areas unexplored and so orginal.
KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Why is original so important? What's wrong with influences? When someone creates something, writing, art, music, mathematical theories, scientific research, a new recipe, it's all influenced by past experience. I'm writing a book that's about vampires. No one has ever written this storyline or this book before. These characters have never existed anywhere outside of my imagination before. But it's hardly original is it?
Original is subjective anyway. Original based on what? Based on that it's never been thought of before? Based on that the person has never thought of it before? Based on the "audience" has never heard of it before?
No, my thoughts aren't original, I'm sure somebody, somewhere, has had them. The difference is that they haven't had them like I have. "I hate my life" is the most unoriginal thought there is. However, the only time I ever think it is when it's pouring rain and I have to go outside in it. That's original, why? Cause very few people hate their life when they have to get wet. If any.
Original is subjective anyway. Original based on what? Based on that it's never been thought of before? Based on that the person has never thought of it before? Based on the "audience" has never heard of it before?
No, my thoughts aren't original, I'm sure somebody, somewhere, has had them. The difference is that they haven't had them like I have. "I hate my life" is the most unoriginal thought there is. However, the only time I ever think it is when it's pouring rain and I have to go outside in it. That's original, why? Cause very few people hate their life when they have to get wet. If any.
cymbidia
unrepentant pervert
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2001
- Posts
- 8,786
If we look back to the beginning of original thought, if we could pinpoint when in our evolutionary history that occurred and in which individual's brain, we would find an original thought. Is that food?
As our species evolved and individuals and groups of individuals faced new challenges and influences, there were more original thoughts. What is this plant? Is it good to eat or will it make me sick?
As we discovered agriculture and settled into communities, we had, for the first time in the history of our species, the incredible luxury of a stable food supply and, so, some spare time. More original thought occurred. I can make this cooking pot in this new shape and it will be both functional and pleasing to the eye.
As small communities coalesced into larger city-states and feudalism (or whatever name it bore in all parts of the world) took hold, we continued to have original thoughts, thoughts that stood on the shoulders of all human experience that came before them.
And so it has been throughout our history as a species.
Our world today is incredibly complex compared to the world those early agriculturists inhabited. However, even as they came up with new phrases, new ideas, new thoughts - original thoughts - to deal with their changing world, we do still.
It's often difficult these days to pinpoint the beginning of a thought but they definitely still occur. When i was a very little girl, for instance, there was no such thing as a CD or a DVD. There were no computers, not really, much less computers in everyone’s house. There were no hand-held calculators, no cordless phones, no wonder bras, and no compact hair dryers in everyone's bathroom. There were no black holes, no power hedge trimmers, no disposable diapers, and no ubiquitous debit card scanners at the grocery store. There were no ice dispensers on refrigerators, for god’s sakes.
There's still a lot of original thought, more than there has ever been. It gets disseminated into popular culture so quickly, so easily, that these days the idea, the original thought, seems to have always been here. However, on closer examination we can see that it's not so. Our ability to grasp original ideas and new ways of looking at and doing the same old stuff is as much a part of Homo sapiens as is our ability to walk on two legs and our inability to photosynthesize sunlight into energy.
As a species, we constantly quest for new ideas and new ways to do the same old stuff. Some of us make more of a contribution toward pushing the boundaries of knowledge than the rest of us and such has always been true. However, to say there’s no original thought anymore is to consider us a stagnant species, one without any curiosity, any ability to search out the new - and that is demonstrably not so.
Yes, Never, original thought is still alive and flourishing. It stands on the shoulders of what has come before, it but is original and, incrementally, leads us further along in our development as a species.
As our species evolved and individuals and groups of individuals faced new challenges and influences, there were more original thoughts. What is this plant? Is it good to eat or will it make me sick?
As we discovered agriculture and settled into communities, we had, for the first time in the history of our species, the incredible luxury of a stable food supply and, so, some spare time. More original thought occurred. I can make this cooking pot in this new shape and it will be both functional and pleasing to the eye.
As small communities coalesced into larger city-states and feudalism (or whatever name it bore in all parts of the world) took hold, we continued to have original thoughts, thoughts that stood on the shoulders of all human experience that came before them.
And so it has been throughout our history as a species.
Our world today is incredibly complex compared to the world those early agriculturists inhabited. However, even as they came up with new phrases, new ideas, new thoughts - original thoughts - to deal with their changing world, we do still.
It's often difficult these days to pinpoint the beginning of a thought but they definitely still occur. When i was a very little girl, for instance, there was no such thing as a CD or a DVD. There were no computers, not really, much less computers in everyone’s house. There were no hand-held calculators, no cordless phones, no wonder bras, and no compact hair dryers in everyone's bathroom. There were no black holes, no power hedge trimmers, no disposable diapers, and no ubiquitous debit card scanners at the grocery store. There were no ice dispensers on refrigerators, for god’s sakes.
There's still a lot of original thought, more than there has ever been. It gets disseminated into popular culture so quickly, so easily, that these days the idea, the original thought, seems to have always been here. However, on closer examination we can see that it's not so. Our ability to grasp original ideas and new ways of looking at and doing the same old stuff is as much a part of Homo sapiens as is our ability to walk on two legs and our inability to photosynthesize sunlight into energy.
As a species, we constantly quest for new ideas and new ways to do the same old stuff. Some of us make more of a contribution toward pushing the boundaries of knowledge than the rest of us and such has always been true. However, to say there’s no original thought anymore is to consider us a stagnant species, one without any curiosity, any ability to search out the new - and that is demonstrably not so.
Yes, Never, original thought is still alive and flourishing. It stands on the shoulders of what has come before, it but is original and, incrementally, leads us further along in our development as a species.
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
I see original thought on a weekly, if not daily basis, via a theatre company acting and writing workshop I'm involved with. Plays of stunning originality of thought, structure and conviction. A theatre of ideas, issues, and explorations of the human condition. Too bad they'll never make it to Broadway (where, I believe, there are currently two or three plays running, and the rest are musical revivals and Disney behemoths.)
Of course there's a lot of crap, too. But I want to be around inventors. Writers are inventors (actors are interpretors, unless they're improvising, and creators of illusions), and so I seek them out. That's why I'm in the company (it sure as hell ain't for the bad coffee in the lobby).
If you want to find erudition, you can. It's out there. It may not be on NBC, but it's out there. (Try moving to Christopher Street and Seventh Avenue South for a year -- you'll find plenty of original thought).
Of course there's a lot of crap, too. But I want to be around inventors. Writers are inventors (actors are interpretors, unless they're improvising, and creators of illusions), and so I seek them out. That's why I'm in the company (it sure as hell ain't for the bad coffee in the lobby).
If you want to find erudition, you can. It's out there. It may not be on NBC, but it's out there. (Try moving to Christopher Street and Seventh Avenue South for a year -- you'll find plenty of original thought).
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
Not to mention the condom.
bluntforcemama
Aqua Vulva
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2000
- Posts
- 30,225
I read an article about original thoughts, and how they the idea wouldn't even come into existance until someone thought of it. I think original thoughts are in the hands of the genius, someone who can think of things that have never been in the minds of anyone else.
