derivative: not original; secondary
I'm reasonably sure the line separating what is original from what is derivative will always remain elusive to me. What conclusions have you come to about this?
Because my abiding passions - music and literature - are frequently associated with these two words, the slippery distinction between them is more than an academic matter to me. I've never encountered a serious musician who has not devoted thousands of hours to listening to and then trying to copy other musicians they admire. The one common denominator in every great writer I've ever learned anything about is their insatiable lust for reading others. Serious musicians and great writers get to be that way - at least partly - because they've built a foundation by studying and absorbing, and then using, some of the techniques of those who came before them. How can some of what they've studied not find its way into their own work, at least to start? In other words, how do any of them escape being derivative, at least a little? What is original?
Though I don't know as much about filmmakers - and far less about painters, photographers, sculptors, and other artists - as I do musicians and writers, I suspect the same is true in every artistic endeavor. I do know Spielberg carefully studied Ford, Kurosawa, and Wyler. I also know Picasso didn't become the Picasso most of us are familiar with before going through early stages where his technique owed a great deal to several masters who preceded him. How can any thinking person dispute the fact that copying the technique of others when starting out i.e., being derivative, greatly contributes to artists developing their own original voice? And where is that line, i.e., who determines when an artist has stopped being derivative and begun to be original?
As you have pointed out, acquiring and mastering technique requires imitation of others. The derivative artist stops there. The original artist builds on the foundation of that technique by adding his/her unique creativity and producing something new that reflects the artist's personal signature. While elements of the work may be derivative, the whole is something that could be created only by that particular artist.
ReplyDeleteKim; Thank you for the insightful and succinct comment.
DeleteHello, Again, Pat. I cannot help but be reminded of the various court cases, most recently involving Ed Sheeran, and whether or not a songwriter 'stole' their own songs from another writer/artist. Some have had to 'pay' in one way or another as a result of what was determined to be too much of a coincidence from one song to another while some have been able to prove their writing, although similar to another, was original. I'm thinking it may all come down to interpretation and/or intent. Although I wouldn't want to be the one making any of these decisions. I recall reading after the Ed Sheeran case was settled in his favor how much of an impact it would have had on songwriters if the decision had gone against him. And, again if memory serves correctly, and freely admitting to having no experience in songwriting whatsoever, how various songs have, and will continue, to use the same or very similar chord progressions while still maintaining the originality of the writer. As you have so aptly put it .. a 'slippery distinction'. indeed.
ReplyDeleteBe well,
Bob
Bob; Thanks (again) for multiple comments on the same day. Although I didn't use musical examples here, that's only because this issue gets even thornier when applied to the finite number of notes available to any composer. Although the number of possibilities for various combinations of 12 notes may be staggeringly high, in the end, somehow/somewhere there's going to be something that's derivative of something that preceded it. Trick, tricky, tricky.
Delete