Original. What is and what isn't?
Original connotes the first of its kind, never done before. Is anything original?
My friend Nicki came over for breakfast this week. She is a maker, a textile installation artist, and someone who knows how to upcycle, repurpose, and make new again. She has design flair. She understands the origins of cloth and can take a left turn, turn something upside down on its head, and create with innovation. We had a free-ranging conversation about what is original, art, artisanry, cultural appropriation, and cultural appreciation.
Original means that something is new, unique, or the first of its kind. It hasn’t been copied, imitated, or derived from something else. Originality implies fresh ideas, designs, or work that has not been seen before.
I once read that there is no such thing as an original idea.
For example, patchwork quilts can be attributed historically to the Black women of Gee’s Bend, Alabama, whose antecedents were slaves, or the Amish who immigrated to the United States from Switzerland seeking religious freedom. They were created based on the need for warmth, reflecting their poverty, and to reuse every scrap of fabric long before repurposing and recycling were the vogue. In Japan, patchwork is known as Boro, the technique of layering fabric scraps with hemp to make insulated jackets and bedding. Boro is now a fashion phenomenon, but it is rooted in a cold, northern, unforgiving climate where people live a hard scrabble life, making do, making ends meet.
Last November, I attended ORIGINAL in Mexico City, a folk art, textile, and artisan event produced by the federal government to showcase the talent and authenticity of Indigenous culture, design, and talent. The event was created to address the widespread appropriation of native design by international fashion brands, who copy verbatim the iconography of centuries-old community identity.
Stealing cultural patrimony is widespread around the world. Yet, there are no international copyright laws that offer protection. We can only call out those who are taking advantage of poor and often defenseless people for their commercial gain without compensation to artisan communities.
This brings me back to the concept that There is no such thing as an original idea. Do you believe this is true? How do we feel about this? Can we sew a Japanese kimono jacket and embellish it with patches of cloth that are remnants made from scraps? A process whose origins are mixed in Black American and world history. What about teaching indigo dye techniques rooted in India, Japan, and Oaxaca? What about using Japanese sashiko embroidery techniques on jean jackets? As we admire what others create, does this give us the license to reproduce our own versions.
Are these creative products original or variations? In writing, we call copying plagiarism. In university writing programs, a common exercise is to write in the style of a famous author. Does this encourage us to copy? In fashion and design, we call this cultural appropriation. As creatives, do we borrow or adapt from something or someone else? What gives us the imprimatur to call something original? Originality can be associated with authenticity and the absence of prior existence in its exact form. So, the keywords here, from my point of view are exact form.
So, if we modify something, can it be considered original since it has been changed? When I make a dress or jacket pattern from a favorite piece of designer clothing to sew again, is this copycat or original? I may make some alterations and adjustments. I might add a pocket, use a different fabric, or change the width or length. I might embellish the fabric with topstitching. Does this make it original?
And, then there is taking a creative act beyond personal use and monetizing it for commercial purposes. This is something I don’t do but others who want to replicate it to sell will. This steps into the realm of cultural appropriation. I am sensitive to this since I lead cultural, folk art, and textile tours in Mexico, taking people far off the beaten path to meet artisan makers who are weavers, natural dyers, and embroiderers. When their ancient, native designs are copied, this infringes on and compromises their identity and ability to earn a fair wage.
Recently, I wrote a piece for my blog, Oaxaca Cultural Navigator, titled What is the difference between art and artisanry? I think the questions of whether something is original, is art or is artisanry are closely related.
What do you think?
***
Are you an experienced writer wanting a jump start, support, and a motivating new experience? Do you keep a journal or want to write but don’t know exactly how to begin? Join us in Teotitlan del Valle, Oaxaca, January 2-8, 2025 for a Women’s Creative Writing Workshop Retreat. All levels are welcome.
FYI: I’m very happy you read my essays. Thank you very much. If you are a paid subscriber, please know that I thank you from the bottom of my heart! I do not have a paywall. Anyone who subscribes can read for free. Please consider supporting my work with a modest paid subscription. I’d be most appreciative!
Original clothing design from San Pablo Tijaltepec, Tlaxiaco District of Oaxaca, Mexico, where woven and embroidered clothing is a marker of cultural identity.
Norma, as usual, you raise some interesting questions. Art is something I like, but have no expertise, so my comments are probably naive. I do think that people create art, not for making money, but for the need/joy of creation. Of course, the artist may need to get paid something to sustain him/her, as many of the Masters needed commissions to do their art. But if the goal is creating art, (and I follow your discussion of ORIGINAL art) then there is no such thing as appropriation. Leontine Price can sing Verdi, and Gershwin can write jazz. Nor do they owe anything to the originators of that art. We all build on the past, or stand on their shoulders as they say. And I think it's fine to monetize these borrowings without compensating the originators. It's all done for the sake of creating new/additional art. It' ok with me.
In a class in grad school, in the Arts Management program I said out loud: art is not controversial ..well the class loudly disagreed with me and my shy nature prevented me from explaining. The tools of aesthetics: shape, color, texture, volume, line and more make a piece ART by creating, with those tools the elements of art: virtual light and space, aesthetic distancing, and aesthetic emotion, and an expressive and unified form…subject matter that can be controversial does not enter into the purity of aesthetics but the subject matter is made up of the tools of aesthetics and it takes abstract thinking to separate subject (if there is one) from the aesthetics…it is the stuff of art that is not controversial….and without the elements, the imagery is not ART. 💛 Lois (who attempts to make ART)