Originality in the Present Context
If you have come across the names of Tony Kakkar and Tanishk Bagchi, it must be for their infamous contributions to bollywood’s music industry. The way A.R. Rahman’s “Masakali” was ruined with Bagchi’s remake “Masakali 2.0” is indescribable, and rightly so reacted upon by netizens. Same has been the case with the classic old song “Mere Angne Me”. Meanwhile, Tony Kakkar has been accused of copying songs from the lesser known K-pop, trying to escape the criticism by using its unpopularity. Not that all the composers before them have been completely original and clean in their music, but the number of songs that are either copied or remakes of old songs have increased in the past few years.
Currently, an entire generation (millennials) of young adults lives in nostalgia, listening to songs of the past and appreciating the quality of music back then. If you’re one of these people, it won’t be difficult for you to realize why this peculiar tendency exists. Unlike the originality displayed by A R Rahman and Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy in their music, these modern composers have heavily relied on making remakes and remixes of pre-modern and retro songs, ruining the charm of the original song without producing a pleasant new version of it. With the exponential increase in access to internet, netizens have identified numerous songs – modern, pre-modern and even retro – which have been plagiarized from other music industries, mainly western and Korean. Autotunes and voice smoothers have given mediocre talents the rise to fame and a few actors an alternate livelihood. This degrading music quality and plagiarized composition is a very clear and relevant example of the loss of originality in the present times.
Now let’s take another example, which is closely related to the music industry: the movie industry. With the advent of a dozen OTT platforms and their lucrative offers, most of us have one or the other digital platforms with us (whether it be our laptops or mobile phones) to watch our favorite movies. This has taken the audiences out of the theaters, devoid of the cinematic experience that they otherwise would have experienced. Moreover, the release of nearly half of the movies have shifted to these digital platforms, manipulating the mass to buy their subscriptions. Adding to this division in the accessibility of movies, many of the movies lack original scripts and cling to either action sequences and CGI for their success. Therefore, modern cinema heavily relies on technology and digitalization of the screenplay and hardly has any room for acting in it. This leads to a very popular belief among veteran directors that the modern technology has reduced the scope of good plots in the movie industry.
In this digital era, where information is abundant and accessible to all, it’s easy to copy a ready- made content but it’s also easy to catch one, whether it be some form of art, an autotune, research paper, an edited photo or a reproduced version of a movie. Even among amateur writers, there is this probability of writing a piece of information that was stored in their subconscious memory from the reading of another novel, questioning the originality in their own writing skills. The concept of digital arts has also flourished among content creators. Apple pencils have taken over the conventional brushes and the intricacy involved with the hands of an artist will soon be
replaced by a software feature. If so, can art still be appreciated? Does it take away the individual’s talent and uniqueness and become a commonplace ability requiring no genius but only labour?
Given this context of the decline in originality in art and technology in modern times, we must ask ourselves these questions: Is my work really my own? To what extent can I compromise the originality so that my work still remains authentic (my own!)?
Where does the concept of Originality get serious? Where do we draw the line?
Not every time is the reproduction of art (here, art represents all kinds of art: music, dance, cinema, artwork, etc.) unpleasant or unworthy of appreciation. Several movie remakes and song remakes have remained popular even among the millennials. Recreation of events or photos are actually harmless and received in good spirit. The question then becomes: what is the extent up to which the loss of originality (or plagiarizing) is acceptable and harmless? The answer to this question differs from one form of art to another and from one type of audience to another.
Long before these digital tools existed, replicas of famous paintings were made and sold in different parts of the world. Someone in the US would have a Mona Lisa or the Last Supper hanging in their bedroom. While this made the average man accessible to Da Vinci’s creations, he does not get to savor the actual strokes of Da Vinci. However, the average man neither has the knowledge to appreciate it nor does he have the fortune of visiting Louvre. As long it doesn’t matter to the average man, the replicas will continue to exist and will be widely sold. However, the commercialization of such replicas on a big scale (e.g. a Mona Lisa replica in an Indian Museum) will definitely lower the authenticity of the original one.
Cultures, even digital cultures – emerge or change from the shift in the likes and dislikes of the mass from one generation to another. The reason why Tony Kakkar and Tanishq Bagchi are still making songs is not their talent but their popularity among the current generation (Generation-Z). Despite the belief of a large number of people that Bollywood music is dying, there are still a lot of people who listen to the new songs that come out everyday. This is not at all surprising. Our society has, over time, experienced many such shifts – ups and downs and highs and lows – in various types of cultures. Are these shifts good or bad? We cannot say. The existence of such music trends (or movie) trends itself is an example that the mass likes it (undeniably!).
Then, where does this end? Will the world unavoidably lead towards replicas and remakes and remixes and eventually to a degraded quality of all art forms? The answer is NO. As mentioned, these are shifts in popular opinions and popular trends, and these change from one generation to another. Not only that, it is very possible that the millennials break this pattern and help regain the original status – the authentic one – in terms of music. Same goes with the art of cinema. Some changes, for example, digital art and digital libraries, may not go completely back to the original forms, but they won’t get extinct either. The appreciators of Da Vinci will still visit the Louvre 100 years into the future and the average guy would still be happy with the replica hanging in his bedroom.
The Tradeoff: Accessibility vs Authenticity
Man seeks comfort. Very little proportion of the 7 billion people knows exactly how art should be appreciated. The rest, wants comfort and convenience, and they’ll choose the path which is more favorable. Piracy, for example, is being done on a very large scale despite the attempts of the production companies to control it. Why does an average user sacrifice their movie experience by having pirated copies of their movies? The answer is simple: they can watch it on their own pace and at their own place, which they find to be more comfortable. The rise of OTT platforms have the same reason behind it. Hence the phrase “Netflix and Chill”. The accessibility will always overpower authenticity, and it should be looked as a positive aspect of the reproduction of original items. The aura of the original is traded off with the accessibility to the average guy. As long as the balance is maintained in this trade off, there is no harm to the original art or disrespect to their creators. Similarly, the party-culture and DJ nights have helped these modern composers to continue their trends with the trade off in music quality, while a considerable portion of audience still wait for Rahman’s music to come out. Reproduction does not lead to the death of the art, it merely divides the population into two different categories: the ones with the depth to understand the art still appreciate the authenticity, while the ones who seek comfort and convenience do not mind the reproduced versions. If I may quote myself, “not every replica stains the original.”
Inspiration vs Imitation
What can we do as an individual, knowing that the reproduction of art and media has put the original works and originality in content to an existential crisis? This is where the difference in inspiration and imitation comes in. Whether you’re a writer or an artist or a director or a PhD student writing their thesis, there is one thing that you should keep in mind: Choose Inspiration over Imitation. This is where we draw the line. Inspiration will help you create your own work. To write, one needs to read. That doesn’t mean one writes what he reads. One can get inspired and still be authentic. Imitation, on the other hand, will only lead you to making replicas. You’ll write the exact same lines, probably paraphrase it or write the same thing in your own words. This is classic plagiarism. Not only is plagiarism an ethical issue, but it will restrict you to think in an original way. Allowing ourselves to spend some time alone and remove the influences (devices, technology), we can strive towards authenticity in our respective works. If we all start as individuals, we would end up being the shift, the change, the revolution that we wanted to see, enhancing and protecting the originality of our own works, and in the process, the originality of others’ works as well.
References:
Some books with relevant content (originality, art, entertainment consumption, etc.) are listed below:
- Steal Like An Artist – Austin Kleon
- Beg, Borrow & Steal: Artists Against Originality – Robert Shore
- Heart of the Original – Steve Aylett
- Original Copy: Plagiarism and Originality in the Nineteenth Century Literature – Robert Macfariane
