Is Originality Valued in Art?

I was speaking with my philosophy professor about David Hume’s view of objectivity, and he brought up the philosophy of aesthetics. To simplify it, thinkers try to understand what makes good art. Some might believe that all art is subjective, the cliche “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Others might argue that there is an objective standard to which we can judge all art. For example, my professor told me Hume argued that all person’s value originality. This seems plausible; a unique idea is better than the same idea later stolen. Still, I might challenge that. Is not that novel sensation gained from viewing artistic ideas for the first time determined on an ad hoc (case by case) basis?

The popular Elder Scrolls video game series published by Bethesda is an artistic masterpiece. The Elder Scrolls: Arena was created in 1994, and new chapters continue to be published today. My first experience with the series was in 2006 with The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. The game was truly breathtaking. The world was completely open, and my character was free to take any action I directed him to. I could speak with all the townspeople, take quests from those in need, join guilds, buy items from merchants, steal the items if I could not afford them, and find a fence to sell the stolen items to. If an NPC (non-playable character) had something I wanted and I got caught trying to pickpocket, I could just kill him and loot his body. If there was a witness the city guards would attempt to arrest me, and if I escaped they would remember me the next time I entered the city. The world was huge, with 9 large lived-in cities and 367 places on the map to explore. No game I had played at that point in my life had ever incorporated those ideas. Later, in 2011 Bethesda published The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. This new version took the exact same mechanics mentioned above, created a new setting, and added some touch ups to make the experience smoother. This time around Bethesda amped up its marketing strategy and the game sold a great deal more copies, causing many new people (who had not played Oblivion) to experience the art. It was a great game and I very much enjoyed my time exploring its world, however it was not quite the same. In conversations about the game with new fans I would say something akin to “yeah Skyrim is good, but you should really play Oblivion, I can’t explain why but it’s just special.” I realize now that the special factor I referred to was my unique experience; the novelty of experiencing all those variables of the art for the first time. To me, Oblivion was better because it was MY original. It was not, however, THE original. I later discovered that in 2002 The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind was published, and within it all the artistic variables that made Oblivion so novel to me. That knowledge did not deter from my appreciation of Oblivion. It was my first experience with the artistic ideas, and therefore it is the better art (for me). Likewise to those who played Skyrim for the first time, Skyrim is the original even though Oblivion preceded it. The people who I’ve convinced to go back and play Oblivion enjoyed it but told me it couldn’t compete with the place Skyrim has in their heart. It did not matter to them that Oblivion came before and was therefore “more” original, nor does it matter to me that it is not THE original.

Novelty is the quality of being new, original, or unusual. New and original to the viewer, not necessarily new and original to the universe. Novelty is the subjective version of originality, and I believe that it is more likely to influence people’s feelings toward art. I am fascinated by the idea that art can be judged on an objective basis, but I am not yet convinced that originality plays a larger role than novelty.