Default Site Weblog

The Death of Originality in Design- Coming to Terms

Originality in the creative world is dead. If originality were a person, its obituary would have been extensively written and re-written several decades ago together with a whole series of memoirs, well before the advent of the Internet. Its demise however has not been readily acknowledged by the design community and till date, several designers are still claiming to have found “originality” in their creative endeavours. Truth be told, I am often left quietly bemused when I chance upon design portfolios emblazoned with opportunistic slogans such as these: “We make wholly original and creative websites”. Are they staging a dramatic (and historic) resurrection of an age-old concept? I think not.

Originality in the creative world is dead. If originality were a person, its obituary would have been extensively written and re-written several decades ago together with a whole series of memoirs, well before the advent of the Internet. Its demise however has not been readily acknowledged by the design community and till date, several designers are still claiming to have found “originality” in their creative endeavours. Truth be told, I am often left quietly bemused when I chance upon design portfolios emblazoned with opportunistic slogans such as these: “We make wholly original and creative websites”. Are they staging a dramatic (and historic) resurrection of an age-old concept? I think not.

  In the current postmodern era of information technology and social networking (the cast of Twitter and company please stand up), it is near impossible to stake a claim on any idea as being “original” because we live in an intelligent world of derivations – everything is a “copy” of a “copy” and some copies are more uniquely construed while others emerge as blatant “rip-offs”. I am not being cynical but the death of originality is an understood fact which we often deliberately ignore either for commercial (would you employ the services of a design studio that proclaims the death of originality?) or personal reasons. If originality has dissolved then what has taken its place? I have a proposed answer: “deception”. Read on.

Creativity and Originality are Bitter Foes Not Friends

  Creativity and originality do not bear any semblance of interconnectivity. In fact they are polar opposites. Originality in its traditional contextual usage refers to the unique invention of an idea or project, one that has not been explored previously. Creativity however acknowledges the death of originality, and it concerns itself largely with, as what George Kneller once said, “re-arranging what we know in order to find out what we do not know”. Hence, to think creatively, we must trudge through what has been done rather than engage in an aimless quest to conquer unchartered territories/avenues. If you embrace creativity (which I’m sure all designers do), then you are effectively admitting (even if you deny it) that originality has lost its proper placement in contemporary design. An idea needs to be analysed holistically before it is applied to any sort of design framework.

Subscribing to the belief that originality exists; effectively rules you out of the creative equation. Personally, I see it as a paradox and not a logical juxtaposition when someone is described as creative and original. Creativity is about building upon existing ideas, and that in definition is hardly original. Having said that, most linguistic theorists, upon hearing this, would instantaneously hurl brickbats at my direction, because as far as the dynamics of the English language is concerned, creativity is synonymous originality, and vice versa. I strongly disagree with this proposition from a design oriented perspective. Creativity and originality are on two different ends of the spectrum. 

We Are All Slaves of the Ordinary

As designers/creative individuals, we may wish to assert the integrity of imaginative vision in our projects and dislodge our association with ideas of the commonplace, but these are merely baseless desires will never be fulfilled. We are slaves of the ordinary. It is the perceivably ordinary (mainstream) concepts which provide us with the necessary structural foundations to build creatively and imaginatively. I like to think of ordinariness as the “democratic ticket” into the world of creativity. After all, from a philosophical viewpoint, we are born as ordinary beings, physically, spiritually and mentally (although supernaturalists would deem otherwise, but there is no space for that argument here). In the field of design, a thorough grasp of the ordinary will provide you with the ammunition required to re-assemble what is already known into a visual work of art that at least “seems” different. This brings me to my next point; the idea of deception.

The Master-plan of Deception – Illusion is the way forward

In many ways, design, apart from being the science of aesthetics, is also the science of illusion. Design invites us to suspend our beliefs and “play along” with a prepared script (often “written” by the designer). We want to be deceived in a way that reminds us little of actually being deceived. Let me explain. It has often been said that good design merges form and function harmoniously. In design theory, we are taught that all designs should be sensible and practical. The more pressing question is: are these traits simply “achieved” through aesthetic science alone or are they implanted (I’m tempted to use the word “fabricate” but this would then sound like a conspiracy theory!) and specifically manufactured within the minds of users? 

Design is about persuasive convincing as much as it is a methodical science. Good design is also psychologically manipulative; it has the ability to dictate the terms and conditions upon which you “read” and use a design. It is then no wonder that certain designs are referred to as “original” precisely because the design in question has successfully ingrained a very specific “viewing-mentality” amongst users, on how exactly to perceive and interpret its form and function. The concept of originality, under the above pretext, is then artificially resurrected.

There is an element of deception even in the most basic, microcosmic forms of web-development technology. The latest iteration of Cascading Style-sheets, CSS 3 for example, has been adorned with several updated features and functions. Amongst them is the new RGBA CSS declaration which allows you to set the opacity of colours thus allowing web developers to take advantage of embedding text on semi-opaque backgrounds without having the text inherit any of the opacity. The technicalities of this are irrelevant for the purposes of this article, but the philosophical principal behind the concept is interesting. In many ways, this is an example of deception and illusion. The main functionality of the feature revolves around the use of traditional design elements of transparency, opacity and RGB colours packaged within a new design framework environment – CSS 3.

Design is about re-hashing the old in new ways which seem original in both form and function. Please do also note that the terms illusion and deception are not used in a derogatory sense here but matter-of-factly.

Never Underestimate the Power of Influence in Design

Influence plays a major role in design especially in the networked online environment. A few weeks ago, I shared a couple of links to two articles, on Reddit. The first article generated a few negative comments, not on its content, but on the design of this site while the second article attracted positive comments on the site design. One member’s comments (we shall call him MR X) however made me think about the power influence has on design. 

Firstly, we can either assume that Mr X is terribly confused or alternatively, we can look deeper into this and realise how the power of influence can alter our perception of specific designs. It is clear that when a design starts to receive positive feedback, then the follow-up responses will always follow suit; what I call, the “herd-mentality”. Mr X however was unaware of his earlier comments and thus became a wonderful example for this point.

Similarly, when a design is (rather erroneously) termed as “original” by a majority crowd, it would then be “original” in terms of its representation. One of the reasons why originality still exist in certain quarters of the design fraternity, is due to the fact that it is a term that is constantly being used to describe design and such it has a very strong power of influence in design. 

Concluding Remarks

Is originality really dead or has its meaning evolved? I am inclined to disagree with the latter view because the whole meaning of originality connotes a sense of uniqueness that is unexplored. To me the issue at stake is not weather originality is dead, but when we would finally accept its complete dissolution. With that I leave you with a quote by 19th century French sculptor, Agueste Rodin, “I invent nothing, I rediscover.”

What are your thoughts?

Interesting post here! It has not death and never dies. We still can see a lot of designs such as blog, magazine with original design and content. However, I agree the number of these originally is just a few!

Nice view, Josh.

Reminds me of a quote from the famous guitarist Nuno Bettencourt, formerly of the band Extreme. He once said that he didn’t create music, he just played the notes that God put on his guitar; so he didn’t feel he was doing anything original at all.

Now regarding those two quotes from Mr. X—It seems strange that Mr. X would not recall his previous view on your blog’s design. Very odd that he would have contrasting views over a period of just 9 days.

Of course, this might be evidence of the highly-manipulated digg/reddit crowds that are really nothing but a nuisance to the internet, if you ask me.

Great job, very interesting read.

Originality does seem lost forever, perhaps.  Most designs are just a regurgitation of old ideas using a new medium.  There are really no mediums left to explore… and if there are they are few and far between. Even in web design we’re seeing the use of mediums such as ‘watercolour’ which is great and new to web deisng, but there is nothing fresh about it.

As a designer I’ll I don’t think i’ve ever come up with a 100% original concept. No matter how hard you try, it’s become quite difficult to be the first and create something uniquely new.

Perhaps there is still hope. Not for art but for functionality… maybe that is the last available place for true creativity?

And I guess that last thing I would think… aren’t all ideas, even the ones we think of as original, just based upon things in our environment? The earliest forms of art were mere interpretations of life and environment, and from there it evloved based on early art, and from there it evolved based on that and so on… So is anything really original?

Interesting article. I think web design is more about creativity rather than originality.(Unfortunately, even creativity is considered a sin by some web designers)

Whenever we come up with a creative design, we still think of it in terms of div’s. Originality in web design would mean that you abandon the pre-defined rules of design and even HTML and CSS. Our designs are bound by the rules defined in HTML and CSS. Getting original would mean abandoning them and coming up with something entirely new which has never been heard or seen before. You can realize how demanding this is. It’s like reinventing the wheel. There are times when I do feel restricted with these rules. It’s like I have a new idea for a design but it cannot be implemented because there are no rules defined in HTML and CSS which can bring this idea to life. (One might suggest using Flash here, but for me Flash is more like animation rather than design)
Hence, we can come up with creative web designs but originality is something which seems extremely tough until we come across Einstein of web design. 

I just wrote an article about originality in web design and how it seems to be faltering.

Originality isn’t dead, it is just a limited resource. One of the commentors said you can’t be original when you are bound by the rules and limitations of HTML and the web. I would have to disagree. It is within this construct that you are forced to be creative, if you do indeed wish to stand out. It is a challenge, but it can happen.

I wouldn’t say design originality is dead - there will always be “new” things, trends, fonts, etc. However with the advent of technology and speed of info travel, design has become more “global” and less “neighborhood”. I think that makes it seem to wear out a lot faster than it used to.

@mary - That’s what I said. You can get creative with pre-defined rules, but to be original you got to break those rules. Let me give you a small example here.
You can make creative things with Lego bricks. But you are still bound by the shapes provided to you and the ways in which they can be joined together. To come up with something original, you will need to mold those shapes and make them again according to your needs, or you will have to completely abandon Lego bricks and come up with your own set of tools. The same thing applies to originality in web design. If you’re working within the given set of rules, then it’‘s creativity and not originality. Originality demands a different vision.

Originality may be dead in one sense but like Amber, I wouldn’t say it is completely dead.

If you really break it down, visual design could be simplified as a mixture of it’s principles (color, proximity, contrast, etc.). Good visual design could be pleasing to the eye or it could just simply help solve a problem. Design styles and techniques become popular because they either appeal visually to a large audience or help solve common problems. 

As the canvas changes, so do the opportunities for new visual perspectives and and the arise of new problems. 50 years ago there were no such thing as web designers. As technology has changed, new mediums are introduced. New ways to stimulate lead to what I would call originality. 

As Amber mentioned it does appear that new mediums are saturated at a much quicker rate but who knows what the future holds and what canvas we will have to design on next.

Originality is not dead, just exhausted in certain mediums.

@Lam

Thanks Lam for the comment. I guess it all depends on how you define originality. Well for me, originality in its strictest meaning connotes a sense true authenticity. There is no copy. Based on that definition, originality is certainly not thriving in today’s contemporary design world, like you mentioned.

@Louis

Hi Louis, thanks for taking the time to comment. I think the example you provided on Nuno Bettencourt epitomises the main essence of this article – design/artistic ventures are assemblages of already existing elements which we modify and apply to our work in different ways. Originality as an independent entity does not exist.

I have to agree with your opinion on Reddit. It did seem suspicious at first as to why Mr X. would appear to be ignorant of the same website he visited just a few days ago. I did a quick check on the profiles and it is belongs to the same account. Like you said, the Reddit crowds are funny breed. I’ve got some very strange comments over the past months.

I guess the point I was making was that design also tends to be highly shaped by influence and all it takes is one negative comment to start the ball rolling, if you get what I mean. Thanks again for the response!

@Jillian

Hello Jillian, beautiful comment!  The “medium” is certainly an interesting approach to study design and originality. I agree that we see an intermesh of various mediated arts (watercolour in design/illustrations etc) rather than a wholly original piece of work.

About your idea on functionality; I think there is great scope for unique (I often hesitate to use the word “original” lol) functionality. We’re always seeing new ways of using things/appliances etc.
It is true that we draw inspiration from the environment and some of the most famous paintings in the world such as the Mona Lisa, were constructed through a keen observation and appreciation of culture and life. Originality would thus seem to be a fallacy in the first place – or maybe it was used as a marker to aspire for greater heights.

@Adit

Hi Adit. Very engaging comment! Design principles, theorems and the logic of science seem to establish the perimeters/boundaries within which we can work with. Being truly original would thus be an impossibility; unless the entire structure of design as an institutional paradigm were re-worked, which is highly improbable. But perhaps some would argue that originality is also bound by “context” – there is for example, originality in art and originality in cooking, which are two different subjects entirely. I know I seem to be opposing my own argument here, but that was just a random thought. I do agree with you that achieving originality in the traditional sense of the word is almost impossible. 

@Mary

Hi Mary, thanks so much for the comment. I haven’t had a chance to read your article and would definitely be reading it after I finish typing this comment. You made an excellent point about originality being scarce.

There seems to be a general vagueness and ambiguity surrounding the actual meaning of originality, both in the design community and in general. Does originality simply refer to any semblance of independent thinking and freshness? If this is so then we can most certainly quantify originality as a “resource”. If originality refers to something wholly new, then we will not be able to quantify it; something can’t be a “little original”.

There is no right or wrong solution but I really enjoyed your idea on originality and resources.  I hope I made sense!   

@Amber

Thanks for the comment Amber.  I agree that the networked potentialities of the Internet and new media in general have changed the way we think about design. Information collaboration and social networking certainly mask the true essence of originality in the traditional sense of the word. However, while there may be always “new” trends, “newness” itself does not equate to originality – in today’s contemporary design world, newness seems to suggest a certain “creative freshness”. Creativity and originality in my opinion or quite different.

I’m not sure I’d want to call originality dead. I do agree, however, that creativity and originality are not the same thing. I think I’d rather say that originality has reached it’s current limits. Perhaps, in the future with new technology and mediums originality will make a resurgence.

Respectfully, I had a couple of issues reading this article.

You claim originality is dead – implying at some point it was still alive and kicking. But by your own definition, originality is not dead, it simply never existed at all. We are all products of our environment, and what we create is always based on past knowledge and experience. You can trace this back to the beginning – the invention of the wheel, written language, etc. – none is truly original by your definition, but is all creative. So in a sense you are arguing that the very word “original” is useless.

I would argue that originality is a relative term and not an absolute one. Evaluating originality requires a context. The context you have chosen is Web design – nothing is original because it is all based on the “laws” and “boundaries” of the medium, according to your article. For something to be truly original, it has to break those “laws” and “boundaries”. But you can broaden the context to the point that nothing is original. In the broadest context, no matter what solution we arrive at, it is still based on the laws and boundaries of the universe (atoms, molecules, laws of physics, theory of relativity, etc.) and therefore is not original. Even if we create another universe with a different set of rules, it is still not original because it would be based on our own knowledge and experience of the current one.

So anyway, when someone uses the terms “original” and “creative”, they are almost always using these within a context (thus making it a relative term). For example, within the context of Web design, I would describe something as original because, compared to other works in the medium, it stands out as being less derivate, and more independently arrived at. I’m not suggesting it is completely detached from any prior experience, knowledge, or influence (because such a thing is impossible). I do not feel wrong at all for using the word “original” in this sense.

I also think that “originality” and “creativity” can be looked at another way – “creativity” is a process, but “originality” is the result. Thus you can use the two together.

Originality doesn’t exist? Tell that to a parent holding a new born baby. Make that comment to a teacher who spends the day in front of classroom of 10 year olds. 

I want to believe that originality exists for each of us on an individual basis; because if it didn’t, mankind is doomed.  I don’t want to be a clone of someone or something else.

I like having the capability of original thought. Do I look at the world around me? When I see a style/design that I find interesting, do I adapt into my own style?  Sure I do, who doesn’t.

Here’s my question: Wouldn’t you agree that the uniqueness or originality of creativity is a precipice to changes in culture? We only need to look back in history to see how innovation of design changed our lives and lifestyles. Think steam engines, household goods, architecture, even fashion.

Excellent blog, look forward to reading more.

@Eric

Hi Eric. I agree with most of your points. However, it depends on ones definition of originality. If there were to be a resurgence of originality then how do you envision that resurgence to take place? Then again, I’m assuming that your definition of originality refers to the notion of something completely new as opposed to something that is derivative from another piece of work. I guess if originality were to exist again, then a paradigm shift would have initiated – a complete new structure of thinking and acting with design.

@Brian

Thanks Brian for taking the time to write a very detailed and insightful response.  It is true that I do need to make certain clarifications. Well, the historicity of originality can never be ascertained for sure; there is no empirical evidence to suggest if originality did exist or exists even now, but I guess my main point was that we have to be careful in classifying works of art as original, as I do think that is a term that is used rather loosely. 

Ideally, I would define “originality” as a frame of thinking (the idea that a particular piece of art for example is “new”) but I would specifically refrain from claiming that there were periods of heightened originality and vice versa.

I definitely agree with your point on the relativity of originality and creativity. As I mentioned in a previous comment, the concept of originality denotes an implicit context – art/web design cooking etc. The main purpose of my article is to actually stimulate thinking on the very nature of “originality” – what does it actually mean?

Personally, I would never feel comfortable using the word “original” to qualify something that is unique in the web design world. Creativity seems a more apt descriptor. Then again, as I said, it all boils down to ones conception of originality. 

The relationship which you have suggested between creativity and originality (with creativity being the process and originality as the result) is an interesting perspective. However, it does portray an otherwise linear relationship between originality and creativity, which I feel is certainly not the case. Rather if I were to make a connection between creativity and originality, I would state that creativity forces an amalgam of various perceivably “original” works. 

@Joann

Hi Joann, thanks for the wonderfully penned comment. Well, I believe your definition of originality stems from the idea of “identity” – the essence of social and subjective identity of mankind. I do agree that “uniqueness” is vital in stimulating cultural and social change but I would be hesitant to attribute that change to originality, precisely because (as witnessed in the comments here) of its rather ambiguous/amorphous definition. The innovations you have mentioned are in several quarters, regarded as “original”, but I guess my question is: is originality simply a social construct or is it a concrete and hence tangible manifestation in contemporary culture?

I do agree that the idea of “originality” really doesn’t exist.  Everything we experience and do from our vernacular to the way we hold a fork is derived from external forces interacting with our chemical make up. 

Although I’m not sure how far apart creativity and originality actually are.  Your mind has two original concepts in it(Yes they are derivatives).  A fork, and a spoon.  You decide to get creative, combine the two and are left with a spork.

The problem is with the arbitrary nature of describing something as “original.”  We know that the spork is derived from the fork and spoon but still call it original.  Someone else looks at a spork and decides they’re going to make the teeth of the spork longer, that wouldn’t be considered original.

I think describing originality mainly comes out of it functioning or accomplishing tasks that have never been done before regardless of where it derived from.  With that, I don’t think originality or innovation is entirely dead. 

All sectors are different and the visual arts, well, it’s pretty saturated.

@Anthony

Hi Anthony,

You have so elegantly summed up the linguistic and contextual conundrum surrounding originality.

Well, an idea which I’ve not explored in this article is about the relevance of originality and functionality - there seems to be a more solid case in arguing that originality can possibly stem from functionality (the spork as an example).

It seems to me that we now have three concepts at hand: originality, creativity and functionality. Creativity perhaps represents the versatility we have in modifying the functional purpose of various designs/appliances etc.

I think personally, that this topic is subjective. It’s subjective on your definition of the word.

I went ahead and opened up my old Noah Webster 1828 dictionary and looked up the word. Here’s the definitions:
—————————-
Fountain; source; cause; that from which any thing primarily proceeds; that which gives existence or beginning.

First in order; preceding all others; as the original state of man; the original laws of a country; original rights or powers; the original question in debate.
—————————-

According to these definitions, originality is the first, the beginning. This definition does indeed support your case. But I think it goes beyond that as well. We also need to look at the phrase as a whole. “Originality in Design.” This would mean that we also need to see what design means to us in order for us to be able to say this.

Personally, I don’t have an opinion on this yet because I haven’t really sat down and thought about it so I won’t state my claim that originality is dead or alive. First of all, originality is not even a living thing, so it can’t be true. (Kidding)

Anyway, great article as usual and it really made me think.

PS: Isn’t it ironic that you mentioned that originality is dead and that the originality and creativity can’t exist together yet on your site header, it says “Creative and Original” ideas in design”

Just a thought!

Good article Josh, but I do disagree that originality is dead. I feel it just grows up. What I mean by this, is when we are very young and haven’t yet been bombarded by knowledge through education, TV, reading, peer pressure, every new experience is original in our minds. We create a piece of art using new materials like watercolors or glue, cardboard tubes and colored paper to make a creature we had never really saw before is original. This doesn’t last forever.

When we get older and the influences of others come into play through education, artistic training, peer pressure and a whole host of other factures, this all changes. We then shift to where our artistic/design ventures become based on our experiences in life, and not our own original ideas. This is the time when our individual levels of creativity come into play. When we take that knowledge learned and utilize it to create or manufacture something useful, beautiful, but unique in it’s creativity. Creativity is our approach to a problem, idea or situation. How we then interpret it, and solve it demonstrates our level of creativity.

This is very true when it comes to design of any form, whether it is industrial, furniture, graphic and web design. We face a problem, situation or an idea (need), and then we access it. We do this by using the knowledge and experience we’ve gained to creatively come up with the right answer or course of action to solve it.

Like I mentioned at the beginning of my comment, originality is not dead, it grows up and becomes our creativity for solving problems, finding answers and even asking the right questions. How much creativity a person has as an adult, is based on how original their ideas were when he/she was a child.

I think this post was a great read and a conversation too, nice job.

I don’t think that we were meant to be original. Our existence itself isn’t original. Every living thing is a copy of a copy of a copy. We are all made of the same things–cells, beyond that, DNA, further beyond that, molecules and atoms. It’s just that certain organisms and things were assembled in a better way (at least according to our standards) using the same kind of building blocks.

If you take originality in an absolute sense, then that would mean to be or to have someone/something unlike anyone/anything in which it/you would have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common with anything and everything, whatsoever.

That being said, what is truly original in this world when everything is made up of atoms, or when everything may also be a direct or indirect result of a chemical reaction?

@Jad

Haha….I wonder if there would be would anyone bold enough to name their kid “originality”, then you would have an “original” living person.

The definition you posted does validate my argument, on originality being the initial state. Yes, originality is indeed bounded by contextual perimeters, a point which I did not really cover in the article. Design is such a vast subject and because of this, the meaning of “originality”, like you mentioned, cannot be ascertained without acknowledging the definitional nature of the design field in its entirety.

About the banner, well, haha, that’s a good question. I probably had a different opinion on “originality” back then when I made it.  

@Don Rogers

Hi Don, interesting points you have raised. I presume that originality matures at a subjective level – as we mature in age, we would inevitably become familiar with various art forms. However, I do wonder if the same applies to originality within the confines of an institutional context, such as the “design field”. In the latter case, design seems to implicitly define originality in a certain way – new and innovative concepts that are not necessarily derived from other works.

I definitely agree with your point that creativity is about using existing blocks of knowledge to create something that seems “new” (I used the word “illusion” to describe this in the article). Creativity definitely thrives in a derivative world.

@Munk88

Hi Mink88, a very well crafted comment! If you abide by the actual definition of “originality”, then there would definitely be no place for it in this world. Interesting that you mentioned DNA as a constituent of human life. The genetic make-up of everyone is unique (and hence original) to everyone except of course in the case of identical twins. Originality is such a vast subject by itself and I often found that it is used too liberally in the design world (I’m guilty of that too!) without much thought. Thanks again for the response.

@Josh

Yes and that’s where this entire topic gets dicey.  Function derives from survival.  Making a spear.  However function now mostly derives from social delusions and most of it laziness and group acceptance.  Products that seem to make our lives easier (games, cell phones, ipod) and products that set our status within the group (clothing, body image products, cars).

These two products of laziness and fear are more prominent in today’s society (in industrialized states) than anything else and it drives originality, function and creativity.

I know I’m a little off topic but this is why I love listening to people like Mitchell Joachim.  Sure, most of his ideas aren’t able to be easily deployed but he doesn’t approach architecture and urban planning in a way that says “What do people want?”  He looks at it as how it ought to be regardless of what people think they need.

Art and design follow this as well.  Look at art throughout history.  Aside from the limitations of the medium, most art is derived DIRECTLY from the culture of the period and what the peoples perceived needs were.  The great artists and designers well… they didn’t create art from culture, they impacted culture with their art.

Damn, this is why I don’t like commenting I can’t stay on one topic.

@Anthony

Hi Anthony, thanks for the follow-up response!

I agree with your arguments. Functionality in the contemporary era seems to be derived not from necessity but from want/desire and social inclusion. So it is very refreshing to read on the foundational objective and purpose of design and art before it is appropriated within culture. In many ways, this kind of approach seems to re-ignite “originality”, in the sense that it involves an objective evaluation of design in its “raw” state, before it was heavily modified to suit cultural and social desires. You have made a brilliant point!

You can be original to the point that you aren’t understood and therefore will be trivialized and ignored.  The web has become a commercial tool and as such is expected to be usable. 

But to me this article seems to be arguing for artistry without utility.  We can design websites that have no obvious form (i.e. items like buttons, text boxes) but would it be of interest to web?  Can you sell it?

I would compare it to Fine Art vs Commercial Art.  Fine Art exists on its own and is primarily original.  Commercial Art exists to sell something.  Commercial Art can be original but risks failing the primary goal of selling.  Commercial Art tends to follow trends and be derivative since the consumer is already conditioned to accept it.

@Dwight
Hi Dwight, thanks for the response. Utility is definitely an important, practical and commercially viable characteristic of design, and “originality” does come at a price (like you said, if originality overpowers functionality and purpose, then its marketability would be almost non-existent).

However, as I mentioned in the article, design can also express itself as original and functional, even if in reality its actual utility is negligible. So we have to also consider the whole idea of representation (How a particular work of art or design is represented to us) and its consequence on originality and functionality.  Hope that made sense!

Technically, nothing is “original” by such a strict definition because anything you create/design is influenced negatively or positively by each experience you have encountered in your life to that point.

You could unknowingly create a web layout based almost entirely on a subconscious memory of a magazine layout or television commercial etc. that you seen many years before.

@Justin

Hi, thanks for responding!

It is true that originality in the strictest sense of the word cannot be applied to any field/domain. However, I am still intrigued at how the concept of “originality” itself has become a commercial entity for decades. Rather ironically, as we advance in to a highly networked era (the design community is a good example here), derivative works seem to be encouraged and it is also used as a platform for learning, especially in design.

What do you guys think?