Building on the Work of Others as an Integral Part of Originality - Essay Example

May Building on the Work of Others as an Integral Part of Originality Some people have differing concepts and theories of what the word “original” means. Some may think it applies to something being new and different. If something is replicated or inspired based on this so-called original work that has already been done, it is not an idea and cannot be coined as original. This theory is wrong because everything is an inspiration for something else. Anything in a persons environment can be used to create something new and to disregard the creation and deeming it unoriginal is completely untrue. While it may not be possible to truly create a definition of original that fits every single case, it is important to note that any definition of this term has to include the idea of building off of the works of others. For better terms, this definition might be better explanatory “builds off of previous works in the field to make something new in some important way.” By creating a different definition of original, this redefines the idea that is flawed by thinking that using other people’s ideas to be an inspiration as part of creating anything new is not original. Otherwise creation would just be a constant process of reinventing the wheel. This is a problem in several important ways. Creating something new that is not based off of someone else’s ideas takes a lot more time and effort. Imagine what the world would be like if every single person who wanted to use a computer had to invent their own language for programming it, their own operating systems and other computer processes. For progress, creating new things has to incorporate the use of other people’s ideas to save on time and energy, and actually have time to do something new or original with it. Without this efficiency, it would be nearly impossible to actually spend any time on true original invention. Not only does creating something from scratch take a great deal more time than using other people’s ideas and building off of them, but it also actually helps promote originality things. If someone was trying to design a car, for instance, without ever having looked at a car before, they would probably create something that looked a great deal like early automobiles, because those were simple and natural designs. Still though, could that be defined as original because there is still utilization of a previously designed concept? If someone were to look at cutting edge designs like a 2012 Porsche or Cadillac as a starting point, making a few changes and adding or subtracting features, then the final product would still look different than what came before. Even in cases where something appears completely novel, unlike anything that came before it, that design implicitly shows that the designer has looked at previous designs in order to make his or hers completely different. Even the most unique seeming concepts still inherently references more traditional works. In writing it is especially important to make reference to previous work. If it is not an original thought and is someone elses, it needs to be cited. It is still a collection of another persons ideas of someone before them. Also, “texts not only refer but, in fact, contain other texts,” (Porter 36). In this quotation Porter means that when you make reference to another text, sometimes even to a small degree, you still contain all of the information in that text in your text as well, otherwise known as intertexuality and is a form of recycling thoughts through writing and paraphrasing them. This concept iallows a writer to access and communicate extraordinarily complex ideas in a few words of reference. Because of scholarly thinkers of the past, we do not have to re-hash everything. If every time an author wanted to talk about Orientalism they would have to dissect it with the depth and astuteness of Edward Said, then there would be no room in their works to move past it. But now, because Said did all of that work, it is possible to simply say the word “Orientalism” and you have the entire work that he had done to explain what it means, through the use of intertextuality. Your version of the text contains hundreds or thousands of pages of ideas simply through referencing other authors. This allows one to build and make new ideas, without having to write the hundreds or thousands of pages that other authors already have. It allows one to build on the works of others. Another good example of the idea of building off of others work can be seen in one of the most popular products on the market right now: the iPhone. The iPhone did not do anything that was truly “new,” if you want to use the strictest definition of that word. Other smartphones could connect to the internet, had touch screens, could place phone calls and had applications. Other devices could also store and play music and videos. What the innovators of Apple did was recombine these features in a new and original way, taking a cellular phone and making it smarter. Had they been trying to simply invent a new type of mobile phone, their work would certainly have been much less original or useful. Some of the most successful and original products were produced using this definition of original and building off of what others had already done. However, there are ways to reinvent a concept and create something new and important. Any focus on creating something completely new or completely unique can be problematic and inefficient and may not actually lead to originality. If a person merely starts with an idea, it is quite possible that someone else has already thought of it. This then creates ideas or things that bear a strong similarity to things that have come before them. In order to make something that is truly new, it is important to know what came before in order to use it or avoid using it. Redefining originality as a means building on the works of others in new and important ways is a good way to describe the process. Works Cited Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse of Community Author(s)” Rhetoric Review 5.1. (1986). Print. Read More