I often worry that I’m not very creative. I don’t really come up with out of the box ideas or with anything genuinely novel. I do like making things that are artistic though, which colloquially falls under the “creative person” umbrella. But I don’t think I really do anything new or unique.

The thing that I have going for me is that I have good taste. I know when someone else’s art looks really cool and interesting. And if it inspires me to do something similar, well then, I do so. I can usually execute with some degree of competence but I generally am never transforming the art form.

I come back to this thought loop every now and then. For example, I started writing this post in the middle of August, 2025 and have since picked it back up in December. I have been working more with textiles of late and have been slowly chipping away at ironing out a bunch of my artificial flowers (hilariously the backstory on this one is from another post I started writing but have not yet as of this writing posted. This of course, will probably be irrelevant when I actually post this because I will probably try to post that one first.)

(And now that I’m continuing writing this one, I have since posted it.)

The ironing is not yet complete. It is very tedious work, though I do like ironing so it’s not necessarily work that I object to. Whenever I do it though I often think about the end result I’m aiming for, the sewn together floral “veil” and how really it will be a master copy of someone else’s work. I am not necessarily putting that much of a twist on the original (originals, since Hodges himself made several iterations of the same premise). Does that make my version less art than the work of Hodges? Is it “speaking to” You (1997) given that it will not be an exact copy?

It’s difficult not to fall down a rabbit hole here about art and Art. Would my work necessarily not be art because it won’t be up or auction and likely will never be seen by anyone else since I don’t really do social media and no one reads this blog (yet. Growth mindset!)? What’s the difference between art and craft anyway? (The tangential thoughts continue.)

But for now, let’s return to the concept of originality. Is a painting less original because it is a still life? Certainly one could argue that there have been many revolutionary still life paintings (Van Gogh being my personal favorite). But what about the rest of us who paint but not necessarily in any sort of original way?

It’s too much pressure, for sure, to put on myself (or anyone else, though let’s be real my standards for others are way more empathetic and realistic than for my own self) to have to revolutionize a medium in order to feel like my art is worthwhile. My floral veil will not really be that much of a mastercopy beceause I’m only taking the base elements and putting them together similarly. But the flowers, color compositions, and the physical approach to how I’ll be putting it all together, will be different enough.

I think ultimately in pondering this question of what constitutes “original” art versus something “derivative” or “unoriginal” is really about my deep desire for people to see my art. That is the constant tension for the artist, is it not? The desire to be seen and the desire to stay hidden away and not be perceived.

My needless worry about “original” art is a diversion. Perhaps the thinking goes that if my art is somehow original and “revolutionary” that it will be seen by people, which is really the goal at the moment. But that’s not really the case. I personally have been moved by art that did not in some way revolutionize its particular genre. And yet I think about them all the same.

So I conclude this rambling mess of thoughts once again with the notion that I need to chill the fuck out and let go of expectations and just make art. Whether it’s bad art, good art, derivative, or original and revolutionary, just make art.