Uncliched

[TheGoodOlDrama]

Some people are more capable of creating than others, other people are more capable of creating from imitation. So my question is. If you are imitating others, and all you come up with can be separated into different schools of thoughts or art movements for the sake of explaining myselg, are you still a creator?
Some are messengers because the message won't originate in them. If we are messengers it means some primordial force is acting through us but we have no control over it. Which seems to be Ni. On the other hand people who imitate are Ne because they observe and produce from what they found.
This is a bit bullshit because even nietzche or Picasso were influenced by others. But you could see that their views where truly authentic. On the other hand take for example Jordan Peterson who always names some archetypical story or nietzche. So what you have is more like a storyteller. Or Bruno Mars. Not necessarily a charlatan or a guy with no talent. I'm a bit tired of all these people calling professionals bullshiters just because they have a certain number of followers.
Is authenticity the ultimate shape of magic?
Or did it simply died with social media?
What do you think of all of this?

 

[Ren]

Like you said, nobody is a completely clean slate. Even the most daring creators have influences. Original thought and original art are only a matter of degrees. Maybe the fact that we live in an age where everything or almost everything can be so easily reproduced conceals that there is still genuine originality at work with artists and thinkers.

Infinite Jest comes to mind as an example from literature. But also in music, even popular music, there are examples. What about Frank Ocean's Blonde? Never quite heard anything like it before. I think there's loads, but it can easily get lost under the mass of derivative crap the media feeds us. It often occurs to me that it must be really difficult being an art critic these days.

 

[jkxx]

Some people are more capable of creating than others, other people are more capable of creating from imitation. So my question is. If you are imitating others, and all you come up with can be separated into different schools of thoughts or art movements for the sake of explaining myselg, are you still a creator?

Everyone is capable of creating, but on that point we could ask ourselves why only some are compelled to do so and maybe why others are not considering it a high priority. There is a school of thought which indeed postulates primordial forces are partially at work (Jung's namely) or as others have said it "putting flesh on the archetype's bones" but whether this is or isn't a creative process is up to philosophical debate for which @Ren is better equipped than myself as above, in my opinion. I would simply say that it is a constant tweaking process where we mix and blend themes in new ways and whether this looks like rehashing or something entirely fresh is up to the audience in each case.

I don't know if Ne and Ni can be described this way either - if the "i" functions are the ones we assume to be associated with "unique creations" then everyone has i functions somewhere in the stack so theoretically everyone has this potential. As far as derivative stuff, yes, "whatever is fashionable and sells well" has been a problem for a long time and not just in the past years or even decade.