Novelist as a Vocation(17)

* * *



—

It is relatively easy to take up examples of “originality” from the past and analyze them from today’s perspective. Almost always, the things that should have disappeared—for lack of originality—have already done so, leaving us to confidently evaluate what remains. As countless instances show, however, it is far more difficult to properly assess, in real time, new forms of expression in our immediate environment. That is because they often contain elements seen as unpleasant, unnatural, nonsensical, or sometimes even antisocial. Or else just plain stupid. Whatever the case, those around us tend to react with surprise and, at the same time, shock. People instinctively dislike those things they can’t understand, a pattern characteristic of members of the establishment who are buried up to their ears in the dominant forms of expression. They tend to apprehend the newcomer with abhorrence and disgust, because, in a worst-case scenario, the very ground upon which they stand might fall away from under them.

The Beatles would seem to occupy a special category, since they were popular from the outset, thanks to their huge base of youthful fans. Yet that popularity was far from universal. Many saw their songs as no more than a passing fad, throwaway music not in the same league with classic works. In fact, most of the establishment actively disliked them and expressed that disapproval every chance they got. It’s hard to believe now, but many older people detested their haircuts and fashion, to the point that it became a social problem. There were even scattered demonstrations where Beatles records were gleefully broken or torched. Only later did the general public come to appreciate how innovative, and how good, their music was. In other words, only when it had achieved “classic” status.

In his early days, Bob Dylan played the acoustic guitar and sang protest songs, carrying on the tradition of Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger. When he abandoned that style and went electric, however, a great number of his supporters raked him over the coals, cursing him as a “Judas” and a “traitor” for selling out to commercialism. Yet almost no one comments on that move today. In fact, if we listen to his records in chronological sequence, it becomes clear that they represent the natural and necessary evolution of a creative spirit engaged in a constant process of self-reinvention. To those who at the time tried to cage his originality within the narrow category of “protest folk singer,” though, he was no more than a treacherous infidel.

The Beach Boys were a great hit as a working band, but the heavy pressure to produce original material affected the nerves of their musical leader, Brian Wilson, to such a degree that he essentially retreated into isolation, where he remained for many years. The intricately constructed works that followed his masterpiece, Pet Sounds, deeply disappointed his fan base, who were hoping for something closer to the happy surfing sound of his early career. Yet his music became progressively complex and difficult. I confess that I am one of those who drifted away from the Beach Boys during this time—I just couldn’t understand what they were getting at. Now, I can appreciate the direction they were moving in and how wonderful the music is, but at the time, I honestly couldn’t. “Originality” is a living, evolving thing, whose shape is devilishly hard to pin down.



* * *



—

In my opinion, an artist must fulfill the following three basic requirements to be deemed “original”:

         The artist must possess a clearly unique and individual style (of sound, language, or color). Moreover, that uniqueness should be immediately perceivable on first sight (or hearing).



     That style must have the power to update itself. It should grow with time, never resting in the same place for long, since it expresses an internal and spontaneous process of self-reinvention.



     Over time, that characteristic style should become integrated within the psyche of its audience, to become a part of their basic standard of evaluation. Subsequent generations of artists should see that style as a rich resource from which they can draw.





An artist need not fulfill all three requirements equally, of course, to be considered “original.” There are cases where requirements 1 and 3 are clear while 2 is a little weak, or where 2 and 3 are clear while 1 is somehow lacking. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the basic components of “originality” can, to a greater or lesser degree, be found within these boundaries.

Setting 1 aside for the time being, we can see that, for both 2 and 3, the passage of time is a significant element. In short, whether a creator and his or her work qualify as original or not depends to a large part on the test of time. When an artist with a unique style grabs the eyes or ears of the public and then vanishes from sight or grows tiresome, it’s hard to call them “original.” Rather, they’re more likely to fall into the “flash in the pan” category.

I have witnessed that pattern in a variety of fields. Creative artists may grab your attention right off the bat with their daring novelty, but before you know it, they have disappeared. At some point thereafter, they become one of those people you think of only to wonder, “Whatever happened to so-and-so?” Artists of that sort probably lack staying power and a capacity for self-reinvention. Before we can say much about an artist’s style, we need to see an accumulated body of work. Otherwise there just isn’t enough to go on. We can’t really assess someone’s originality until we can line up a number of their works and examine them from a variety of angles.