Is Originality a Design Cliche?
By James Norton
Associate, MET Studio Design

We can't NOT learn, we can't help but gather information, we don't live in a vacuum. As designers we collect resources; we digest them and learn from them, and then re-use them. This is the essence of being a designer. But do we have to be original too?

Originality is one of the most widely used terms in the creative industry, to the point of becoming a contemporary cliche. If you look through the marketing sections of nearly any company producing creative solutions today, then the words 'original' or 'originality' will no doubt appear at some point.

So, here we are as designers from all fields claiming to be selling originality and aspiring to original thought, word and deed - but are we all actually taking the word in vain? Are we devaluing it, or is originality itself perhaps an over-valued concept, falsely worshipped as the be-all-and-end-all of creative endeavor? And do our clients worship originality as we do? Do clients in fact really want originality at all, or are they too just using the word out of habit, when they would much prefer mere newness, innovation or novelty, something that comes in many colours?

I think we are right to DESIRE originality. We have always desired new ideas, places to go, new experiences. That is what makes us human. The impulse to be different and, more importantly, to make a difference is also what makes us choose to be involved in the creative industries, trying to create an identity for ourselves, the companies we work for and our field of expertise. We are all inspired by the touchstones of originality - not just in the creative industries but also in science and medicine and sport and art. And who wouldn't want to have the impact of an Einstein or a Van Gogh or a George Best?

But in placing originality on a pedestal, we must be careful to guard against pursuing it for its own sake. Far more numerous than the epoch-making geniuses of history are the tons of original ideas that are completely and utterly useless to humanity. The Sinclair C5 - and at least half the products in the Lakeland Home wares Catalogue. I donít know if you've seen one of these recently, but they're highly recommended reading. Current highlights from the catalogue include the Cast Iron Bacon Crisper, the Oyster Mitt, the Jar key, which apparently takes the lids off jars, the Mini Chicki Electric Egg Boiler and the Reusable Toastbag, among countless other items.

I'm not saying there is no point in exploring originality for its own sake, because it's fun (although exhausting), and I would expect every student to try and embrace it at one point, preferably by pursuing it in a vacuum so as to not to be influenced by your past education and silent history of knowledge.

But does true originality even exist? Innovation certainly does and allows for the application of human requirements that make our life better. The absence of originality comes from this: each thought has a point of origin and is influenced by what has come before. If something is truly original then surely it bears no relevance to what surrounds it or what has preceded it? In order for design to be functional and usable it has to fill a need or desire based on certain human factors. If something is designed that is truly original then a desire will have to be found for it. To invent something original you must then invent the need.

Innovation - not originality - is the key. Innovation strives to make things new and push things forward in an 'original' way.
Norman Foster buildings are innovative in form, structure and environmental control but still are only buildings and buildings have been founded since the beginning of time from a desire to shelter, settle or farm.

Design is a series of layers of influence and if you are a good designer you'll embrace those and consider them a valuable asset, combining them with innovative thoughts and maybe, one, just one, original thought - but let's not make originality the goal.

So if 'innovation' or 'that one piece of originality' is our aim, how is it best to be pursued? Well, possibly not by trying too hard. After all, history is filled with examples of accidental discoveries of great consequence during the pursuit of something quite different. There is even a special word for it - 'serendipity' - defined in the dictionary as 'the faculty of making fortunate and unexpected discoveries by accident'. The discovery of penicillin is perhaps the greatest known of these serendipitous moments - and the most truly effective - but others of note include the discovery of X-Rays, quinine, insulin, dynamite, Teflon, Velcro and even LSD.

Actually, when serendipitous chemist Louis Pasteur, most widely known for his work on bacteria, fermentation, vaccines, sterilisation and the process of pasteurisation to which he gave his name, accidentally came across a new definition for left- and right-handed molecules he also made a very important distinction between the nature of a true accident and accidental discovery, when he said 'In the field of observation, chance favours only the prepared mind'.

And this is perhaps the biggest pointer yet in how to achieve the grail of originality. It is precisely by examination of the known, of the existing, of the 'unoriginal' if you like, that the culture of 'original thought' may best be stimulated.

Sometimes, when we think we are being truly original, we are simply kidding ourselves. How many times has there been a creative thought or idea, only to find the next day that it is not original at all, because someone else in some other city on the other side of the planet already thought of it, only yesterday? Frustratingly it seems as if original thoughts are like invisible fruit, hanging off branches just above our heads, just waiting for somebody - anybody - to reach up and claim them. And the reason we all have these ideas just before or, more usually, just after someone else is that we are all relying on the same silent history of knowledge and education in our chosen fields that allow us, intuitively, to reach out for the next step. We should all be more concerned with creating worthwhile design, good design, forward thinking design, useful, aesthetically pleasing functional design than striving directly for originality.

We don't have to be Einstein or Brunel or Alexander Fleming to produce good design. We don't really need to be that clever. The best way is to simply know and to respect the work that has gone before, and then, fully immersed in our subject, to let our imaginations begin to fly a little. One of the best ways to do this, I've found, is to keep a sketchpad with you at all times, especially by the side of your bed. In the middle of a major project you will wake up - sometimes in the middle of the night - and sketch down ideas straight from your dreamscapes. Most of them will be absolute crap, of course, but sometimes you can really produce your best ideas like that, from a perfect mix of knowledge, immersion, inspiration and instinct - and sometimes alcohol helps too. We store information, we know how to use it; we are trained to use it and our individual skills allow us to interpret in different ways, but we are not taught to plagiarize to bluntly copy and cheat, and I promise you if you do you will be found out.

Of course, once you've had your idea, there comes another part of the equation, which is ownership and recognition. I'm sure there are very many overlooked inventors consigned to the garden sheds of history, whose glory was stolen by a better self-promoter with an eye on posterity.

But, as we're not all James Dyson, designer and client in one, creating our own briefs and solutions, all this is of course rather overlooking the role of the client. And now the bad news really starts. There are many, many clients - too many clients - who ask for originality and then try and inhibit you the second they see your first designs. Most of the time, in fact, they don't actually want originality. I remember one client very well who said to us 'the problem with you guys at MET Studio is that you take too many risks on my money'. This is the reality of the commercial world. My advice to students or younger designers is certainly to be very wary when clients ask for originality and even to ask them to define what they mean and to lay down the parameters in which they want this originality to fall, because that way you will save a lot of sweat and disappointment.

Presenting truly off-the-wall concepts is an interesting way of testing how visionary your clients are - and of course the really visionary ones do come along every now and then even sometimes with a healthy budget, and they are an absolute joy to work with such as two major projects MET Studio currently has in Hong Kong - the clients who give you a blank piece of paper and mean it - but they're by no means an everyday occurrence. But being creative within given parameters is the task at the heart of good design. As long as you and your clients are very clear what those parameters are to start with, you are going to fulfill some kind of brief that has to be used finally by someone or a group of people. Only by looking, seeing and talking to people can you understand how they move and function, but this is not the territory of originality, it's observation, followed by the application practical information.



Summary

So, originality, true originality, is much more than a design cliche of course, but it's not everything by any means.

For something to be original then it has to offer something that has never existed before and fulfils a need or want that has not yet been known.

I believe the contemporary perception of originality amounts to little more than a desire for recognition of being original. It is also true that today's desire for originality has become the norm. True originality is not a design cliche it's true genius, but people's desire for originality has become the true cliche of today's creative world.





top