Anyone Else Tired of The Tyranny of Novelty?

[doctorbadwolf]

I am always attracted to novelties but in a subjective way. If I haven't seen a movie, heard a song or read a book before, it is novelty for me even if it was made 100 years ago. That's why I spend vastly more time digging into dusty public libraries for books and music than in shops with big "NEW!" signs in the window.

Generally speaking I hate movie remakes, with occasional exceptions. I'd rather watch the original with a couple of flaws than a "perfect" remake. But on the other hand certain movies based on a famous book or theater play don't bother me in multiple versions, it can feel to me like none is the original and they are all adaptations from another medium, which remains the untouched original. I don't mind if they make another Alice in Wonderland adaptation on screen, but certainly I would object to someone wanting to rewrite the book (not counting translations, comics or children's simplified versions).

I do see merit in derivative art however, the difficulty might be in distinguishing between genuine artistic reason and being a rip-off to gain money or notoriety easily. Thinking about a famous case of Aqua's "Barbie Girl" song in the 90s, if I remember right the band was sued by Mattel. It is obvious that a pop band wants to make money selling their song, but the Barbie is such a worldwide famous toy that had become even part of the language, so IMO it was completely legitimate (and novel!) to use it in a song even without permission.

Yeah, and I want to distinguish between two ideas, jumping off from your comment.

Personal novelty, which is simply “have I personally seen this before?”

Critical novelty, which is “does this contain significant elements and forms that would surprise a critic who is knowledgeable in the genre and medium of the work?”

Personal novelty can have quite an impact on enjoyment for some people. Critical novelty, i posit, only really matters to critics.

Yet it's still 90+% familiar - Robin and Little John are still going to fight at the river crossing, Robin's still going to sneak into town and win the archery contest, King Richard is still going to show up at the end, etc. - and thus it's no more than a re-telling of a familiar story with maybe a few new wrinkles. Yes I already have it. Yes I want it again.

That's a big difference from something being entirely new, which is what the OP seems to be suggesting is an overwrought ideal.

Exactly. I don’t think that how novel/original/unique something is makes a particularly useful measure of how good it is, and I think that culturally there is vastly too great a focus on that supposed metric of quality.

And that's perfectly fine. The fact that some people can like it, and others find it tedious, shows that doing it different ways matters.

IMO that is tangential to the idea of novelty as necessary to quality. Again, “has literally any new or different element compared to the works it derives from” isn’t, IMO, at all useful as a definition. If we use that, then novelty becomes so inevitable that the term is entirely redundant, and anything but a perfect copy fits, and then we have to use a different term to mean what nearly everyone means when talking about novelty or a novel experience.

Another way to look at it is, if basically everything that isn’t a direct and complete copy is, to some degree, novel, then novelty isn’t an especially important or even reliable determiner of quality or of how creative or “good” a work is.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Remakes of works that have already been made are at their best when there's something novel about them.

For me, it depends. A faithful remake of something might have very little new about it, yet still be enjoyable. I see this most often in the realm of music.

When someone covers a song, there two basic paths: faithful homage or bring something new to it. I have noticed that some performers cannot actually do the former convincingly, while others can make you wonder what they changed. If the piece is challenging in some way, it is a demonstration of proficiency and skill.

Meanwhile, sometimes a new take on an old classic is just…BAD. Like…what were they thinking bad.

 

[billd91]

Meanwhile, sometimes a new take on an old classic is just…BAD. Like…what were they thinking bad.

Sure, but I'll give credit for trying to do a new take, even if it is bad. Something that's too close, as a recording, just makes me wonder "Why take the effort and use up the studio time?" I think there's room for being a great cover band - Van Halen is an excellent example. Some of their best work is covering other people like the Kinks or Roy Orbison. But their covers are generally pretty different from the originals.
But Tori Amos covering "Smells like Teen Spirit" or Bad Wolves covering "Zombie" or the Hindu Love Gods doing "Raspberry Beret" - those are sublime and really different.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure, but I'll give credit for trying to do a new take, even if it is bad. Something that's too close, as a recording, just makes me wonder "Why take the effort and use up the studio time?" I think there's room for being a great cover band - Van Halen is an excellent example. Some of their best work is covering other people like the Kinks or Roy Orbison. But their covers are generally pretty different from the originals.
But Tori Amos covering "Smells like Teen Spirit" or Bad Wolves covering "Zombie" or the Hindu Love Gods doing "Raspberry Beret" - those are sublime and really different.

Satriani’s cover of “Sleepwalk” is a very subtle one. Why do it? I suspect to silence critics claiming all he could do is shred.

 

[Campbell]

Here's my personal take:

Anytime you use words like tyranny to describe other people's preferences and stated aesthetic principles you have already messed up. We are all free and responsible to form our own aesthetic principles. Someone else's enjoyment of a thing or aesthetic principle they hold dear should not affect what we choose to value.

If someone else values novelty? Good. If someone else values tradition? Also good. That's not for us to decide and should not affect our own well formed aesthetic principles. Criticism does have some value in that it can help us refine our tastes or consider the merits of something in regards to the things other values, but we should never feel entitled to have others share our values. We can try to convince them of the merit of those values, but it is up to each of us to make those choices for ourselves.

My personal stance on this issue is that I value both solid execution of traditional forms, but also see value in pushing boundaries even if it's not always pretty. It's a balancing act though. Novelty comes with certain risks. I admire the risk taking, but also understand that it does not always work. I also admire the craftsmanship involved in doing something extremely well even if it has been done 1000 times before.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Anytime you use words like tyranny to describe other people's preferences and stated aesthetic principles you have already messed up.

Anytime you take a pithy and obviously hyperbolic thread title totally seriously, you have already messed up.

Ever heard of the idea of “the tyranny of fun”?

 

[Reynard]

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that you can only get REAL Frozen Prepackaged Microwave-ready Yellow Mustard Dishes from Big Mustard, Inc.

It's actually the Tyranny of the Official, where people complain there isn't enough kinds of mustard only because they refuse to acknowledge mustard made by independent mustard purveyors.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's actually the Tyranny of the Official, where people complain there isn't enough kinds of mustard only because they refuse to acknowledge mustard made by independent mustard purveyors.

I've heard a lot of "Big mustard is 99.9% of the market, those other brands aren't even really mustard."

 

[dragoner]

Democracy is the "Tyranny of the majority". Not really, but still.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some people want to eat only American yellow mustard all their lives. Other people want to try every kind of mustard produced on the planet. I don't understand why some people are bothered by what kind of mustard other people put in their dishes.

I don’t think anyone is. What we are talking about here is the phenomenon wherein people will act like something is bad simply because it isn’t super-original.