Is there such a thing as a 'new idea' anymore?

[Asmodeus]

I would say no. I once had this discussion with professors at my university, and they were pretty much unanimous that there are no new ideas left. What we are dealing with now is variations and fusions.

However, with new inventions and new scientific discoveries, there is potential. I doubt anyone in ancient times came up with the idea of "black matter". There was no need, because we didn't need to balance the mass equations of the universe. Sure, the concept of something unseen and oppositional is as old as the species - but the unique necessities and history of the IDEA of black matter make it virtually a new idea.

As our awareness of the universe expands, so will the pool of potentialities. Yes, we are thinking of things at an exponential rate. But the unraveling of the universe will always be one step ahead of consciousness.

 

[RiverNotch]

Ooh, another can of worms here! I hope you all give me cookies for this, hehehe....

Teetering on the edge of on-topic:

I kinda think this whole thread should be redefined: I don't really see a debate here, more a discussion. The whole thing seems to have devolved into a non-debate: there really aren't any sides to this discussion, no conflict of ideas, no actual arguments. We're just looking at a sphere from different angles.

For this to be a real debate, I think we need a more proper definition: what do we mean by "new ideas", by "old ideas", by "creativity", heck, even by "art"? On the issue of what is new and what is old, what is derived and what is original: by original (or new, since these two generally seem to mean the same in this debate) do we mean something completely distinct from something else, or something that seems distinct, or heck something that's mostly derived but has parts that are "completely new" (and if so, what are our standards for knowing if it's new enough?)? On the issue of artistic creativity, how do we even define what is artistic? Referring to what Fijoli noted a few posts ago, look at science: from certain angles, it can actually be "artistic", even though it is in general considered to be the antithesis of what's artsy. What do we mean by all these terms? What's the debate's scope and boundaries (and all that)? And what exactly are we "supporting" or "countering" here?

On Asmo's statement:

Hmm.... that gives me a pretty neat idea for what we're gonna talk about in Filipino class tomorrow....

Anyway, capitalizing on the lack of definition for what's "new" and what's "old", isn't science, by its essence, simply our discovery of what is already existent? Hence, the ideas we're discovering, though new to us, aren't exactly new to the general realm of existence; we may perceive them as new, but they can, in fact, be much older than us. What exactly are we talking about here in terms of what is new: new to us, or new in general, new even beyond our own perception?

As our awareness for the universe expands, so will the pool of potentialities for us; in fact, all of the things we're discovering now, or even (in essence) the ideas of understanding behind them, have existed since they were created, since before we found them. Again, newness really needs to be defined here in terms of to whom it is new.

On Fijoli's second statement:

Envying that kid right now.......

Again, we really haven't defined what we mean by "artistic" and "scientific". Checking Monsieurs Merriam and Webster's definitions on the terms, we have:

Artistic: showing imaginative skill in arrangement or execution
Scientific: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of (a state of knowing; knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through (principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses))

; which, at least by my perception (which is kind of irrelevant, seeing as how this is not the exact point of my argument), are two broadly overlapping terms: something scientific can be artistic, and vice versa. So again, referring to Minibit's statement that "we're referring to artistic ideas, not tools or scientific advances": how do we really define what is artistic and what is not? How do we distinguish between the artistic and the not-artistic, if there even is such a thing?

[The painful thing is I think we already discussed something like this in the cbox, but due to my late computer's sudden breakage, I don't really have access to the logs]

On Levusti's statement regarding "inventions":

Personally, I think those key ideas in human existence are basically a mixture of literally spiritual gifts from God and our own biology's adaptations to our environment: on the mystical thing, I refer to the Bible and a bunch of other philosophical texts out there (which aren't necessarily limited to Biblical, heck even outright religious texts) which I am too lazy to actually name atm; on the biological thing, I believe our priary advantage against most creatures is our distinct awareness of stuff and our advanced social systems, and its the mixture of these two things, plus the three basic motivations of general human (or even non-human) existence, which are pleasure (the pleasures of having eaten, or having made babies, or having other basic shit), power (power over our predators, our enemies, our environment, our selves), and meaning (what is life? Why are we here? And all other crazy existential poop that's really complicated to explain), that really created those things; ie, no one but our whole (as in, all of humanity) selves created them, in that they are innate, or at the very basest our creator created them, the creator who is neither disputable nor provable because of the limitations of the human consciousness (in that what happened before existence can only be thought of, and never fully confirmed, not even by math, which however abstract is by its very nature part of the existence by which it is trying to unbind itself, and hence cannot be unbound from). But this really doesn't matter to the debate, now does this?

On Lady Sabine's first statement:

That's a pretty good demonstration of my point. She pretty much outlined the whole idea of why the whole debate is kinda, err, a non-debate. To really have an argument, (and I'm basing this closing statement on her primary metaphor, the DNA thing) we have to define the things we're talking about (and perhaps have that definition refined by constant questioning). What exactly is our idea of unique, artistic, old, new? Is it the whole strand of DNA itself, including both the arrangement of nitrogenous bases AND the nitrogenous bases' composition themselves, or is it just the arrangement of the nitrogenous bases? Or is it, perhaps, even at the very core of the nitrogenous bases? The very composition of the segments of identity themselves?

And so, again, for this to be a real debate, we really need to define all the key terms and such. Uch. I'm starting to feel redundant here. Am I being redundant?

But continuing down her post's lane of thought: in the end, though, debate or not, the whole idea of "uniqueness" is, at least in the case of art, not really important. Like what LS(D) said, "Art should be about communicating the experience of living", and such communication doesn't really need to be unique in order to be....well, art. (Not touching her very, very last part, coz' that'll destabilize my summation, and it's yet another starting point for debate, mainly on the definition of the stuff I've been talking about in this post).

P.S. Yes, I know I didn't really offer up any definite definitions here. I wanna leave that floor empty first before I step in.
P.P.S. There was something else I was gonna P.P.S., but I forgot what it is. Stupid belters.

 

[Fijoli]

~facepalm~

I am an artist, surely not the only one in this thread, but any one who is not an artist in this thread has an opinion that means absolutely nothing to me.

Writing IS NOT The same thing as that I do, I am a visual traditional fine artist. This debate has not taught or shown me a new POV. Asmo and heliacal alone made the most cohesive points and heliacal is an artist and as far as I am concerned Asmo does work in the writing and art museum, he has a clever and adept visual understanding of art and has proven it to me through his "work". MiniBit is also an artist, I've seen her artwork on DA.

That is just my opinion and I would love to accept the opinions non artist have, but maybe they are just going about it the wrong way and I am also having a hard time reading through the steamrolling walls of text about what people have already said.

Can we focus on our own opinions and form our own views that maybe...just maybe doesn't have to do with steering the debate and steamrolling. Or is this too much to ask? Cause I for one would like to, if not believe in new artistic ideas, find and debate NEW IDEAS that are really happening.


~cracks knuckles~
I'll show you how it's done. I'll give everyone new art ideas that sprung up in at least the past 20 years.


GUY PAINTS WITH HIS OWN BLOOD

-SANDART LIGHTBOX NOW A PERFORMANCE ART

-Gunther Von Hagens turns Donnor bodies into works are art and scientific learning tools.

http://www.bodyworlds.com/en/gunther_von_hagens/life_in_science.html


-Paralyzed man paints by mouth

Try to actually bring shit to the table, debating opinions is pointless, but debating ideas like these proves that we must first agree upon what is "new" before we even try to form opinions based on other peoples opinions.

I for one think that guy painting with his own blood is crazy, but god is that fucking genius o.o

 

[Laggy Lagiacrus]

@Fijoli I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that nobody has ever painted with their bodily fluids before the person in the video. That nobody's ever made art out of sand before. That someone hasn't turned the human body into art, or that someone who's lost the ability to move some or most of their body has found a way to circumvent it. Because, chances are, somebody's already done it. Just because you've never seen it before, doesn't make it new.

I'll concede that new mediums will come about. Invention is inevitable. But those aren't ideas, they're mediums, different ways of expressing a concept. A portrait, whether of blood or ink, is still a portrait. The themes it expresses will have been expressed before, in thousands of ways. There are no new ideas - only ways to say them.

But then again, I'm not an artist, so my opinion means sod all here, to you.

 

[Fijoli]

@Fijoli I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think anyone can honestly say that nobody has ever painted with their bodily fluids before the person in the video. That nobody's ever made art out of sand before. That someone hasn't turned the human body into art, or that someone who's lost the ability to move some or most of their body has found a way to circumvent it. Because, chances are, somebody's already done it. Just because you've never seen it before, doesn't make it new.

I'll concede that new mediums will come about. Invention is inevitable. But those aren't ideas, they're mediums, different ways of expressing a concept. A portrait, whether of blood or ink, is still a portrait. The themes it expresses will have been expressed before, in thousands of ways. There are no new ideas - only ways to say them.

But then again, I'm not an artist, so my opinion means sod all here, to you.

Like I said I'm sorry of I sounded harsh, but I never said that non-artists had no weight in the conversation for others or in general. I clearly stated that it was my opinion, no one should take my opinions too seriously. :/

 

[RiverNotch]

~facepalm~

I am an artist, surely not the only one in this thread, but any one who is not an artist in this thread has an opinion that means absolutely nothing to me.

I don't actually understand what this means. Maybe it's because it's two o'clock in the early morning here, but still, please do clarify. Are you meaning to say that there are opinions here that you really wouldn't give a wind about? Because that doesn't really sound very constructive in a discussion....

Writing IS NOT The same thing as that I do, I am a visual traditional fine artist. This debate has not taught or shown me a new POV. Asmo and heliacal alone made the most cohesive points and heliacal is an artist and as far as I am concerned Asmo does work in the writing and art museum, he has a clever and adept visual understanding of art and has proven it to me through his "work". MiniBit is also an artist, I've seen her artwork on DA.

That is just my opinion and I would love to accept the opinions non artist have, but maybe they are just going about it the wrong way and I am also having a hard time reading through the steamrolling walls of text about what people have already said.

I fear you may be insinuating here that I am not an artist. I am, though I do not show it here in the internet (except, perhaps, through poetry, which is, at least by my definition of the word, art) for two reasons: first, I do not think my art is good enough yet, and I'd rather my closest friends be the only ones to see it for now; and second, I do not have a damned scanner, tablet, or decent mouse skills (and taking mere pictures of my sketches would not be sufficient, I believe, although maybe I should give that a shot).

Can we focus on our own opinions and form our own views that maybe...just maybe doesn't have to do with steering the debate and steamrolling. Or is this too much to ask? Cause I for one would like to, if not believe in new artistic ideas, find and debate NEW IDEAS that are really happening.

Try to actually bring shit to the table, debating opinions is pointless, but debating ideas like these proves that we must first agree upon what is "new" before we even try to form opinions based on other peoples opinions.

What I was doing then was two things: first, I was supporting other people's arguments (for example, your argument that "artistic" things and "scientific" things can, in essence, be one and the same), which is of course key to making an argument both clearer and more robust; second, I was attacking other people's arguments, which I did in no mean spirits whatsoever, as I only intended to help the discover the possible flaws in their reasonings, and hence aid them in clearing up and cleaning up their arguments. Yes, essentially I wasn't focusing on my own opinions, but what's the use of a debate if I do not at all discuss others' opinions too? That's the point of a debate, isn't it: to advance each other's arguments, not just our own's?

I acknowledge that what I did maybe seen by a lot of you as steamrolling, but I myself do not consider it as such, and I hope that you do not consider it as such too. Steamrolling is, by urban dictionary, defined as "quickly dismissing someone in a heated argument and interjecting one's own opinion while total ignoring what the other person was saying"; I did not, however, dismiss anyone, nor even their opinions, and I did, in fact, carefully consider their own statements. I may not have addressed each one's statements individually, but I sure as hell did not ignore them: I only pointed out the universal flaw in all their statements, and that is that they all did not mean the same thing; they were all disconnected from each other. Or, more accurately, they could have all meant the same thing, but because they never really defined their usage of the terms, they could also have meant different things. Take for example these two passages:

There are no truly "new" ideas. Chances are, no matter what you may think of, somebody's already beaten you to the punch. Every idea can be deconstructed and analysed, and can be traced back to something else. Personal experience, another series - every idea has to come from somewhere.
Does that make any idea or concept any less valid? Of course not. An idea may be old, commonly used, or just worn out. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea.
Just look at the Pokemon games, for example. At it's core, everything remains the same. You could deconstruct and analyse it, and come to the conclusion that it's been the same for every iteration of the main series. But things have been built around it. The idea's been expanded, it's been altered, and it's evolved.

What I think I'm trying to say, is that while there are no new ideas, it's entirely possible to build off of a new one, and create something of your own. Sure, it's not "unique," in the sense that it's never been done before. But you did it your way, with your own personal flair. It may not be a new idea or concept, but it's your own unique variation.

Well, I believe that there are still original ideas out there. I don't think that, just because something may inspire an idea, that that idea isn't original or not creative. I've seen quite a few original role plays in my days on another site that were very interesting, inspired by pictures or music. Now, to do an adaptation of another role play or story isn't original, but you can still put your own creative spin on it to make it your own. Sometimes I do that with my art. I take inspiration from things I see. If I see an outfit on a character in someone's drawing that I like enough, I'll recreate it for a character of my own with adjustments to suit the character. It's not original, but oh well. But whether an idea is new or not, as long as it's a good idea, why does it matter? Beauty and the Beast for example has been done over and over again, but it's still a beautiful story and has potential to continue to be so no matter how it's retold. But this is just my opinion. And I will say this, though, that there is a line - a fine line, mind you - between reusing or touching up old ideas and overdoing them.

Where one referred to "new" ideas, the other referred to "original" ones; they weren't even discussing the same thing! This is a lack of a definition, yes, not merely for their usages of "new" and "original", which seem to both heavily overlap and heavily disconnect, but also for the whole debate itself: what exactly is the debate's scope and boundaries, ie definition? But in this assessment, did I ignore the entireties of their statements? And no, you cannot say that I "did not address what they meant to be addressed": the fact that their points alone disconnected meant solely confusion for me, as I could not have known which discussion to actually follow!

And really now, telling me that I didn't actually bring anything new on the table? You know, even if I had steamrolled I would've been considered as bringing something new: not bringing something new means not actually discussing the thing at all. And what new thing do I suppose I brought? I believe I was the one who first noted (or at least voiced my notion of) the debate's brokenness, a thing which I just discussed. Or perhaps that isn't a new thing at all, since new could mean "completely and utterly nonexistent previously": again, no damn definition.

Really, that post seemed to me more like steamrolling than anything. You specifically did not address my points at all, only hinting at some sort of prejudice against my opinion for either sounding somewhat snobbish or (pray, be not what you meant) not coming from an artist. Again, I am quite insulted, but my personal feelings don't really matter here, and I really shouldn't take anything to heart here, especially because of the early morning blues. So....well, so there.

 

[Fijoli]

I'm sorry that my opinion bothers you guys that much 0___0

 

[Minibit]

I'm just gonna stop making discussions forever >.< *tired of creating canvasses for drama*

Everyone has good points, and creativity, regardless of how much it derives from past ideas, is always good. I'm locking this before it devolves further; my apologies to all involved.