Originality as a Collective Illusion
Is it possible to create something truly new when every visual solution exists within the history of imagesthat have already been created? In this article, the Co-Founder of design studio 11•88 reflects on thenature of originality and what it means in today’s design industry.
We live in a society obsessed with originality. Every other person strives to develop their own style, formunique opinions, and create something that has never been created before. We are afraid of being copiesof one another, of being imitators, of becoming people with no identity of our own. In art, originalitybecomes the measure of talent; in fashion, a sign of individuality; and in everyday life, almost proof thatour existence has a value of its own. But what if individuality has long since ceased to exist?
Is there an idea that has emerged in an absolute vacuum? A thought with no predecessors? We like tobelieve that we create something new, yet our very perception of the world is shaped by language,culture, history, upbringing, and the experiences of others.
We do not begin to think with a blank slate. We inherit a page already marked by thousands of traces leftby others, and we continue writing over them.
Perhaps human beings have never created anything out of nothing. Perhaps we have simply learned togive new forms to what already exists.
Moreover, even rebellion against tradition presupposes the existence of tradition itself. To break a rule,one must first know that it exists. To reject an established aesthetic, one must first become part of theculture that shaped it. We cannot completely separate ourselves from what we resist.
Why, then, do we place such value on originality?
Perhaps it is because simply existing is not enough for us; we need to feel exceptional. The idea ofuniqueness allows us to believe that there is something within us that cannot be replaced or replicated.We strive to create original things in order to prove our own uniqueness, even though the very desire todistinguish ourselves from others already connects us to them.
This paradox is particularly evident in culture. Artists learn from their predecessors, writers engage indialogue with other people's texts, and musical genres emerge from the blending of existing traditions.What we call new often turns out to be an unexpected combination of familiar elements.
Furthermore, originality depends on historical context. What one era perceives as revolutionary, anotherconsiders ordinary, while a third regards as outdated. Originality, therefore, is not always an objectiveproperty of a work; to a large extent, it depends on how and under what circumstances that work isperceived.
This does not mean that all works are the same or that creativity is meaningless. Perhaps we are simplymistaken when we look for its value in absolute novelty. Two people can use the same ideas andtechniques yet create entirely different works. What distinguishes them is not their ability to inventsomething out of nothing, but the way they combine, transform, and reinterpret what already exists.
In this sense, originality can be understood not as the absence of influence, but as an individualcombination of influences. Yet even this combination does not exist outside society: our tastes, ways ofexpressing ourselves, and ideas of beauty are shaped through constant interaction with the world aroundus.
Perhaps humanity has never created anything absolutely new. We inherit ideas, alter them, forget wherethey came from, and eventually declare them our own. We want to speak in our own voices, even thoughwe learn to speak a language created by others.
Originality understood as absolute independence from the past is probably impossible. But that does notmake individual creativity impossible.
Perhaps the problem is not that we are insufficiently original, but that we are too deeply invested inproving our own exceptionalism. We confuse the uniqueness of human experience with the need to createsomething unprecedented.
And so the question arises: if everything we create is inevitably connected to what came before us, whydo we continue to strive so desperately to be the first?
Perhaps true creative freedom begins not with the attempt to create something out of nothing, but withthe realization that we never needed to be the originators of anything in order to have a voice of our own.
