A possible threshold in originality

There may come a point where unconsciously - insomuch as we can separate the two - doing something is more likely to be original, or novel, than if thought out consciously. Conversely, there would then exist a time where doing something consciously - insomuch as we can separate the two - is downright random.

I believe we are on the side of the latter; I wonder, though, what the former would would look like, and more importantly if such a distinction could be made? That is, if such a change is structural or psychological? I call attention to my own inability to end this message succinctly, or my invasion plans towards the end of this sentence.

I agree that at this point man is so conditioned with pre-packaged, closed ideas and meaning that it is hard for him to do anything that we might call really original or novel. I think the “change” that led to this is mostly psychological, in how man thinks and experiences life (and himself). When we close ourselves off to new possibilities, when we allow novelty as such to fall under the auspices of that which already is, what already exists, and be defined therein, we really attain only a surface sort of originality that is only shuffling around pre-conceived images on a ground that never changes… novelty is inherent to experience as such, I believe, and so the more authentic we are the more novelty will arise, in a natural way. This also explains in part why the idea of being original and new is so important to the machinery of cultural production in our society, why it is vital for this machinery to get a grip on man’s notions of what it means to be original and new, to struggle to define novelty for man in such a way that man never escapes the boundaries of this machinery itself, even so that it becomes impossible for man to escape it.

Also, is not the “random” the most original, novel of all? Are you trying to effect distance between the novel and the random? How then do you define novelty where it expressly is the antithesis of the random? Or maybe I am missing something here in what you are saying.

I agree with what you are saying, but I am coming from a position of (digital) history - that is, in the sense of these things actually being recorded.

Take car names, for example. Think of how many are out there. Soon we will move into things that to us, now would seem like a reverse-psychology: ‘the Dodge Buttercup Featherbrush large, general labor truck.’ Imagine a culture that is so enmeshed in double, triple, [how ever many] levels of irony combined with consumerism that to stand out, and be new, is becoming, strictly historically, increasingly random.

What would the threshold look like. Perhaps we could never arrive there, and this is purely a thought experiment.

Consciously I am writing a cons… no, unconsciously I am randoming and now . . .

True originality is harder and harder to come by these days, but originality and innovation can be superfluous. For example, take video games and saturday morning cartoons. When I was a lad, I enjoyed these things. Why can’t kids today play the video games I played and watch the cartoons I watched? Why do we have to continuously reinvent the wheel? It would all be new to the new generation. I consider myself a creative and imaginative person, but is it really necessary to meddle with culture and nature so? If it’s not broken…

Don’t get me wrong, I love creativity, but constant creativty for it’s own sake is excessive, or for the sake of money.
Eventually, there will be nothing left to create. it will be impossible to come up with something original, except for in a new medium (the internet).

Creativity thrives on limitation, so it makes sense that we are more likely to engage in creative thought when we are pursuing some limited end whereas we are more likely to make “conscious” or rather “derivative” decisions when limitations are absent because rather than seeking to work within or circumvent limitations in those cases we are imposing them on ourselves.

I’m still pondering this.