Most of us are familiar with Kinder Surprise, a product of an Ital- ian factory, Ferrero, which owes its success to the originality of its concept. Instead of concentrating on the quality of the chocolate, Ferrero has focused on the little gifts inside the product. The gifts are small plastic toys, each designed with an innovative concept. Kinder eggs are more popular than their rivals which sometimes contain expensive prizes. As a profession, architecture somehow resembles making chocolate eggs. Many summarise architecture as the use of proper material and responding to the clients’ needs and personal taste. This is similar to producing a tasty chocolate egg out of good material with the originality of the concept serving as the prize which considerably adds to the overall value. As such, tech- nical skill in producing a product is not enough. Having an original concept is equally important. Originality in art and architecture requires a formal framework in which the concept is realised. An original concept requires an appropriate framework, or else, it would end up in superficiality. In pure scientific endeavours, any idea can be considered original and deserves attention, while in applied arts the func- tionality of an idea is the main concern and defines the border between originality and creativity. As such, originality or innova- tiveness, either in the case of a scientific research or an artwork, is a natural inclination of man. In architecture, many clients are interested in distinguished and original projects yet take advan- tage of a designer’s love for his profession to impose on him the costs of such originality. Of course, originality depends on people’s character. Some are afraid of it while others welcome it. Many ordinary people consider it a trick used by some designers for attracting clients’ at- tention and becoming famous, in contrast to other designers who prefer established strategies and solutions. There are still others who think of originality as copying certain original works. Such an understanding is common in the world of architecture today. Aristotle once said, ‘A man is a man because he appears in the form of a man. Therefore, there should be a third man who explains how a man and his form both belong to the concept of man.’ Similarly, the only way to discern the originality of an ar- chitectural work is to compare it with other existing examples, an endless chain of comparisons. Frank Gehry, known as the most original architect of our pe- riod, is fully dependent on the aesthetics and structure of Prague paintings, Boccioni’s sculptures and other visual artworks of the first half of the twentieth century. Architects need to learn from and be inspired by others. What is important is how they relate to the works of others. When an artist copies or imitates the work of others for a particular reason and the imitation proves to be influential in his artistic endeavours, such an imitation is regarded as valuable and hence correct. Some believe no artwork is created in a vacuum rather originates from reworking previous artworks. The origin of all arts goes back to nature and as such, there is no such thing as originality. Therefore, it would be better to choose origination as the criterion. Origination means belonging to the temporal and
local conditions in which a work is produced. As such, an artist is one who is able to visualise his personal understanding of the existing conditions. Similarly, a copy is a work of art detached, regardless of its historical context, from its original locale and applied elsewhere, again regardless of the context. According to the author, an original work is one containing new elements which play structural roles and imbue the work with cultural, scientific or artistic values. Of course, there are different levels to originality: some works are more original than others. In architecture, origi- nality consists of abandoning common methods and paradigms resulting in the architect’s disregard for a body of experience gathered over years or even centuries in a particular field which he substitutes with something new based on his talent and ef- forts. In the case of original projects, one should always consider the risk of serious problems arising from originality. No architect has ever been accused of having new concepts yet the problem with original architecture, despite the technical issues, is a refusal of common norms and regulations. The more original a work, the more this rebuttal becomes critical and annoying. Art needs to be effective, hence the importance of the shock factor. Every original work includes a critique of its predecessors. In order to progress, every art needs to distance itself from the common art forms; a refusal. Each original work can be inspired to a certain extent by other works. This principle becomes much more complicated, and a distinction between right or wrong much more difficult, when the designer copies his own works. In fact, whether it is in science and technology, or architecture and the arts, different stages of the original work, its completion and refinement happen at differ- ent intervals. Each original concept needs a period of stabilisation and de- velopment. Then the concepts reach a point where there is either no prospect of perfection, or the initial concept turns obsolete thus a need for new concepts emerges: originality is needed to drag art out of stagnation and establish a new balance.
* Kamran Afshar Naderi graduated in Architecture from Tehran University & Genoa in Italy, started his professional career in Italy, working for Renzo Piano Building Workshop. He teaches in university and from the beginning has collaborated with Memar and has been one of the Memar Award jurors.
تخم مرغ شكلاتي كيندرKinder surprise eggs
Van gogh’s copy of Noonday Rest
Noonday Rest, Jean Francois Millet
The sower, Jean Francois Millet
"وام"، ليكتن اشتينWHAAM, Lichtenstein
موزة تورنتو، دانيل ليبسكيند موزة يهود در برلن، دانيل ليبسكيندToronto museum, Daniel Libeskind Jewish museum, Berlin, Daniel Libeskind