Original: Creativity, originality, and influence do not exist to restrict each other, but instead exist as branches of the tree of individuality. Creativity is “the ability...to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods...” (“Definition of creativity”). All humans possess this ability whether they know it or not. In the iPod Experiment, the students “came up with far more learning apps for their iPods than anyone… had dreamed possible” (Davidson 52). The bright students of Duke University probably never thought of themselves as innately creative or imaginative going into the new school year, yet they created the numerous apps. Since in 2003 (when the experiment was conducted) the iPod was still primarily a device used to play music, all of the apps were the students developed were treated as innovative and unique. However, these apps were not as purely original as the University claims. The environment, being the class the student was in for most cases, influenced the creator’s decision to make an app for each cause. Davidson relays an instance in which a group of medical students developed a way to match, and if needed diagnose, a patient’s heartbeat to an online inventory of heart arrhythmias (Davidson 52). While this solution is indeed creative and unique that showed the individual thinking of the group, it cannot be considered truly original in today’s society. With the strict definition of “arising or proceeding independently of anything else” (“Definition of original”), society places a nearly unattainable standard for one to achieve pure originality. As Lethem describes in his essay “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”, even Walt Disney, a person renowned for his creativity while making family entertainment, should be viewed as unoriginal since he simply revitalized old fairy tales and animated real-life creatures (Lethem 215). The system of telling people to be creative but mandating what is or is not original creates a false perception that gaining inspiration from the outside world is wrong, when in all actuality, it is perfectly normal. In most cases, people do not realize they are being influenced. In Johnson’s “The Myth of the Ant Queen”, he describes how the classes in Manchester, England were so divided, people or stores immediately knew how to separate themselves. “Just a few repeating patterns of movement, amplified into larger shapes that last for lifetimes” (Johnson 199-200). Similar to the students, the citizens of Manchester did not actively think about whether their environment was influencing them or not. Instead, they did what felt natural and let the routines of Manchester guide them to where they would fit in within the city limits. Humanity does not progress without the influence of one individual to another. A large part of the success of the iPod experiment was the crowdsourcing aspect Davidson strongly endorsed. In crowdsourcing, the students and professors solved problems and developed ideas with one another regardless of status (Davidson 51). The process of idea development without set parameters on how something should be done that is seen in crowdsourcing serves as a prime example for how the influence of others builds up creativity, originality, and individuality. These qualities of humanity are extremely interrelated and restrictions placed upon just one quality affects all of them, and the individual’s ability to contribute to others what they have to him/her.
Revised: Creativity, originality, and influence do not exist to restrict each other, but instead exist as branches of the tree of individuality. Creativity is “the ability...to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods...” (“Definition of creativity”). All humans possess this ability whether they know it or not. In the iPod Experiment, the students “came up with far more learning apps for their iPods than anyone… had dreamed possible” (Davidson 52). The bright students of Duke University probably never thought of themselves as innately creative or imaginative going into the new school year, yet they created the numerous apps. Since in 2003 (when the experiment was conducted) the iPod was still primarily a device used to play music, all of the apps that the students developed were treated as innovative and unique. However, these apps were not as purely original as the University claims. The environment, the class the student was in for most cases, influenced the creator’s decision to make an app for each cause. Davidson relays an instance in which a group of medical students developed a way to match, and if needed diagnose, a patient’s heartbeat to an online inventory of heart arrhythmias (Davidson 52). While this solution is creative and showcased the individual thinking of the group, it cannot be considered truly original in today’s society since the pieces of the solution already existed. The students did not create the inventory of the sounds nor a device to hear the patient’s heartbeats. They simply took what was around them and combined it in a new way, so while it was recognized as very original, a lot of the grunt work required for this app to be made was already done by other people. With the strict definition of “arising or proceeding independently of anything else” (“Definition of original”), society places a nearly unattainable standard for one to achieve pure originality. As Lethem describes in his essay “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”, even Walt Disney, a person renowned for his creativity while making family entertainment, should be viewed as unoriginal since he simply revitalized old fairy tales and animated real-life creatures (Lethem 215). The system of telling people to be creative but mandating what is or is not original creates a false perception that gaining inspiration from the outside world is wrong, when in all actuality, it is perfectly normal. In most cases, people do not realize they are being influenced. In Johnson’s “The Myth of the Ant Queen”, he describes how the classes in Manchester, England were so divided, people or stores immediately knew how to separate themselves. Johnson this instinctual phenomenon as “just a few repeating patterns of movement, amplified into larger shapes that last for lifetimes” (Johnson 199-200). Similar to the students, the citizens of Manchester did not actively think about whether their environment was influencing them or not. Instead, they did what felt natural and let the routines of Manchester guide them to where they would fit in within the city limits. Humanity does not progress without the influence of one individual to another. A large part of the success of the iPod experiment was the crowdsourcing aspect Davidson strongly endorsed. In crowdsourcing, the students and professors solved problems and developed ideas with one another regardless of status (Davidson 51). The process of idea development without set parameters on how something should be done that is seen in crowdsourcing serves as a prime example for how the influence of others builds up creativity, originality, and individuality. These qualities of humanity are extremely interrelated and restrictions placed upon just one quality affects all of them, and the individual’s ability to contribute to others what they have to him/her.
It was suggested that I had a bit more clarity to some of my quote analysis by either expanding upon the quote or adjusting the wording to make the point slightly less jumbled.
No comments:
Post a Comment