Reactionary content creators.

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

20 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Originality implies separateness. There is no separation. So it doesn't exist. If I inspire something within you, if I influence you, which sparks something within which allows you to create something new. How is it original? If you look at what exists and it sparks you to create the opposite, how is that original? Its not. It never was.

My perspective is built off of other perspectives. All creation is just an expression of what is and isn't. And all that exists, can only exist because the opposite doesn't exist. If everything was allowed to exist at once, we couldn't appreciate it. We confuse appreciation with originality. 

Sure I have a unique perspective...but it was built, off other perspectives and is influenced and connected by so many factors. If I bake a cake, I take components, put it through certain factors and it becomes a cake. Is it unique? No it was built off the components and the factors so it is connected. You can say it is just a different expression of what already is.

But it has never been original, it is connected.

You could take this further, everything comes from God. So everything is an expression of God. So if it all comes from the same source? How can it be original? It is all made from the same source.

   Yes, I understand a little bit from the spriritiual level. I'm just speaking on the relative and practical domains, that on those levels below there is such a thing as originality and uniqueness, which in most cases provides massive value to other people. However, that value takes time, like trying to teach and layout your knowledge and concepts you learnt as an artist, in some book or video content. However, you found out that some other artist or other profession not only spoke or written on the same topic, but also copied your layout and presentation style, that you've invested hundreds of hours coming up with. How do you think and feeling knowing someone is copying you, and a person who's well established and successful in that field too? Now scale that up, and you get what we're getting with reactionaries leeching off of other content creators.

[Razard86]

3 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Razard86

   Yes, I understand a little bit from the spriritiual level. I'm just speaking on the relative and practical domains, that on those levels below there is such a thing as originality and uniqueness, which in most cases provides massive value to other people. However, that value takes time, like trying to teach and layout your knowledge and concepts you learnt as an artist, in some book or video content. However, you found out that some other artist or other profession not only spoke or written on the same topic, but also copied your layout and presentation style, that you've invested hundreds of hours coming up with. How do you think and feeling knowing someone is copying you, and a person who's well established and successful in that field too? Now scale that up, and you get what we're getting with reactionaries leeching off of other content creators.

With all due respect you haven't made a case for originality on the relative level. Uniqueness exists on the relative level, but originality does not. Originality implies it was not influenced by anything else. A remix is not original it is just a unique take on what already is. Every single invention you see, was inspired by something in nature. How a computer was designed borrows many aspects of how the brain functions. 

Stories people write are influenced by personal stories and legends of previous times. You aren't going to find an exception no matter how much you try. Michael Jackson was influenced by James Brown. When they were both alive Michael Jackson and Prince both influenced each other. The list goes on and on. Astroy Boy was influenced by Walt Disney. 

So no, originality doesn't exist it never has. Everything is interconnected so how can it be original? It can be unique sure because it can express differently. But it cannot be original. 

[Danioover9000]

@Razard86

41 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

With all due respect you haven't made a case for originality on the relative level. Uniqueness exists on the relative level, but originality does not. Originality implies it was not influenced by anything else. A remix is not original it is just a unique take on what already is. Every single invention you see, was inspired by something in nature. How a computer was designed borrows many aspects of how the brain functions. 

Stories people write are influenced by personal stories and legends of previous times. You aren't going to find an exception no matter how much you try. Michael Jackson was influenced by James Brown. When they were both alive Michael Jackson and Prince both influenced each other. The list goes on and on. Astroy Boy was influenced by Walt Disney. 

So no, originality doesn't exist it never has. Everything is interconnected so how can it be original? It can be unique sure because it can express differently. But it cannot be original. 

   That's true, I wasn't building a case for originality, I was building a case for why reactionary YouTube channels, whose content creation is merely reacting to another content, is leeching off value and harming smaller creators in the process, stealing their potential views, viewers and subscribers because their reactions are more entertaining than the original content that was made, so why should you view the original when you can head over to Asmongold, some other big react channel and view the content through them rather than the smaller content creators? See how it hurts small creators?

   Yes, a remix is not original, but far worse, it's a regurgitation of other content too similar with some differences. A remix is mixing content again, were we once again mix the mixture around some more, and then some more, until what spark it originally had is lost over time by layers of interpretations of not just my or your perspective, but other people's too. However, I could weaponize remixes, and say that I was just doing a remix of your content, why are you so triggered? I was just remixing bro. See how I could justify my plagiarism of your content by calling it a remix, and leech off you?  

   I guess how we both define uniqueness and originality is different and that's why we are jarring each other's perspectives. How I define originality is technically originality exists because it came from GOD and simultaneously is GOD. It's a piece of GOD, and the whole GOD. Both part and the whole, every part of art is also a whole domain of art. Uniqueness is similar except it's more focused on your character traits rather than the services or products you are making, that uniqueness is like your unique print you leave behind that gives your art it's special flavor in creation, that makes your art distinctly yours alone that's extremely difficult to replicate.

   The entire thread is more about react YouTubers and their harm on other smaller content creators in their fields, not some philosophical or metaphysical discussion of originality.