Nothing you will read in this thesis is new, but it is exactly what this is about. Individuality is the Blueprint of our culture. "Who am I?" a question posed by many and since we have passed a time where living is purely focused on surviving, defining your own identity became one of the most aggressive tasks of modern society. Through admitting this, I hope to start this thesis by being aware, that I myself try to differ, to stand out, to do my own thing, autonomously developing my identity as a professional. But whose words are these? The environment I grew up in formed my opinions, the structure I studied in my practice, everything that I create becomes real through several technologies and the language I use which is legally considered as public property. Does the work I produce belong to everybody equally as it belongs to me? Who is the author of my thoughts? Where do things come from and where can we take them to?
In the privileged moment of individualization ideas are our commodity. Although we do acknowledge that thoughts come from a more complex constellation of things, we are easy in patronizing our own creative outcome. Every book has an author, every work an originator. The power belongs to the original! By pointing out another creatives un-originality, the critic has become a vocal sword fighting against the appropriation of the genuine. But who has the power to decide that one is less true than the other: All exists simultaneously. It is a frequent habit when I discover several resemblances between two things to attribute to both equally, even on points in which they are in reality different, that which I have recognized to be true of only one of them. Combined with this is another perversity, an innate preference for the represented subject over the real one. (Oliver Laric, 2010) The real one is the first time we see, yet taking twin siblings who look identical but are born seconds apart, one is not less true than the other. Both seem to be equally original. Originality itself implicates a singularity. What seems to matter the most for this thesis is that I disagree with the idea that an author is something a single individual can play. An author function became something anyone can play; The user gets to be a producer and vice versa; Creation becomes a collaborative act and the idea of one great man who owns a thought obsolete. Taking this position is already an antithesis to what art seems to be seen as: the creation of an autonomous genius. With the freedom to write whatever they may please. (Walter Benjamin, 1934) Per definition, autonomy is independence. But we are always dependent on someone or something else, the system, the environment, the sponsor or a client that might shape how we work or who we become. Trying to achieve full autonomy seems to be a readymade fairytale, which already makes one of my intentions for writing this thesis obsolete: I will not become an autonomous designer in the end. Influence is inevitable. Since the author function has multiplied, so has the possibility to be influenced by each others ideas, cultures and opinions. Multiplication, mimicry and appropriation, have become the petrol of culture and although we want to see it as something that is harming the artists autonomy, we will not be able to avoid it anyhow. What we like, we share and the authority of an author in times of posts and reposts has become very void. Published is for the public! It is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; (Thomas Jefferson) Today, almost anyone is an artist. (Hito Steyerl) In the 21st century knowledge is shaped by a bigger community than just the experts of their fields. Design became everyday life, something anybody can do and does. The tools to create have been made accessible to the masses and along this accessibility comes a demand for an active reader role to participate! Produce! Publish or Perish! But the intentionally positive evolution of Open Source (et al.) programs also includes a threat for the conventional creative. If anybody can do what the professional creative claimed to do, what is the role of the designer in the contemporary society today? How does crowd creativity interact with original material? How can we restrict the amateur authors from editing open accessible online platforms like Wikipedia in a dilettantish manner? And who owns creative outcome in times of Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence? The program, the human, the entire human species? Does the rise of the creative lead to the fall of the creative by the age of 33 years like Ikarus who flew too close to the sun?

The following text is structured in little episodes, where I find ideas in different executions, sometimes similar but forever coexisting – a personal selection. Within the episodes I am going to explain theories of creativity and authorship, the hypothesis of Multiple Invention and briefly introduce Design Learning, Design Thinking and Why the Thrive for Originality can be Contagious – If not toxic. The chapters are structured that I recklessly stole from Michel Foucault.

A Who is the real author?
B What has he revealed of his most
profound self in his language?
C Have we prove for its authenticity?
D How is it circulated, who controls it?
E What‘s the matter who‘s speaking?

(1) Het Nieuwe Instituut: 2018, The Hoodie

The origin of Queen Elizabeth has been altered in the 4th issue of Benetton-sponsored Color magazine Race by Tibor Kalman in 1993. The black Queen has been published in a photo-series alongside of other prominent people from a black version of Arnold Schwarzenegger, to Pope John Paul II as Asian, Spike Lee as white and Michael Jackson with a Nordic cast. The series "What if…" brings the notion of confusing color with race to imply how society subconsciously classifies people by the color of their skin. Foremost the black version of Queen Elizabeth was been hugely discussed with a comment of the Buckingham palace stating they discourage companies and organizations from using images of the royal family in any promotional context. In 2015, 22 years after the race issue was published, the same image was apparently censored by the New Zealand government to appear in a new book. Instead of this image, there is a tagline in the saying: There was an image of Queen Elizabeth with black skin. The original image is still floating around on Pinterest and even appears to be a reason for some occasional the Queen is actually black conspiracy-theories. (2) In theory, there are many variations that exactly look like you. Some geneticists believe that everybody on Earth is at least 50th cousin to everybody else, which is likely because we all belong to the same gene pool - no matter which ethnicity group we are in. (3) The online-project Twin Strangers is a platform that promises to find your doppelgänger anywhere on the planet. When uploading a picture the software compares your facial features to a million of other faces in the database. Canadian photographer Francois Brunelle seems to look out for the same visual result. Since 2000 he is driven to capture non-related strangers with similar facial looks. Again, similar, to the intentions of Dutch photographer Ari Versus and profiler Ellie Uyttenbroeks project called “Exactitudes“ (4) that originated in 1994. Instead of focusing only on facial similarities, Exactitudes classifies people according to particular characteristics of their appearances and attitudes. It also functions as an anthropological study of every social group and subculture with titles like Young Executives, Muslimas or Elders. What is interesting in Ari Versus series is how different we all try to be, but still end up appropriating our physical appearance according to our environment, our jobs, age, interests or religious backgrounds. Brad Pitt is likely to adapt his style to his current girlfriend and the curatorial project Tempmate, a collection initiated by a group of graphic design students is mocking creatives searching for individuality unintendedly ending up all looking the same. Benetton’s current commercials do not even attempt to stand out anymore. Now everything is brightly colored, carefully constructed, very expensive and exclusive. Just like any other high-end clothing boutique.

The first vocal imitation usually marks a major milestone in a toddlers life. Whereas animals are focusing more on learning about the target (How to get food) human children mimic everything they see. Researchers have also found that we unconsciously mimic other people’s facial expressions to feel what they feel (emotional mimicry) and that mimicking movements or postures have shown to have a beneficial effect on people’s perception of you.(5) The perception of a human hunting has also been the first art work which can be dated back to the Stone Henge and the caves of Lascaux. It that sense the Stone Henge Artist also tried to mimic the first thing that seemed to be his natural environment – a man, maybe himself, hunting animals with a spear. Early (supposed to be) female Stone Henge Artists formed their own body as a fertility figurine which we now collectively call a Venus. The most popular Venus version is the Venus von Willendorf (Austria, 1908), which has not been the oldest or first Venus found but gained its iconic status through several appropriations in art and design. 300.000 years after its formation it still gets reproduced in the form of a trophy for the award ceremony of the Creative Club in Austria, which annually awards advertising, not art. In 2018 Facebook censored an image of the little statue for being pornographic, as the responsible ones have not recognized it as a prehistoric, and therefore obviously not pornographic, piece of art. (6) What is also interesting about the same little figure is when it comes to the art works description several archives name the author as being "homo sapiens sapiens" which basically would mean is has been made by the entire human race.

When artists mimic their environment, they also mimic their own practice. Through mimicking, we learn. Variations, and sketches of existing art works put into question which version is considered the original, the final, or just a sketch. Edvard Munch produced fours versions of The Scream. The first Scream from 1893 is the most known. The second one from 1895 was probably commissioned. The 1910 version is believe to be a replica after selling the 1893 painting and the 4th version is eventually also dated back to 1893 and could be the actual first version, but is considered less valuable or iconic by art historians than the more familiar one we know now. (7) Copying his own practice was in a way a study to refine and perfection. An indication of self-copy can also be found at another great classic „The Kiss“ by Gustav Klimt which is exposed in the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. By stepping close enough to the painting, a pencil drawn grid becomes visible underneath layers of paint. This grid implicates that Klimt used a small reference image, drew a grid over the reference, then drew a grid to the same ratio over the large surface and then copied each square at a time until the entire image was transferred. This indicates that the original artwork was probably comparably way smaller than the original large version we know now. The revelation of an artist and his tools does not try to minder the quality of his production but puts in question if the genius status liked to connect to an artist is justified when creation is hugely based on practice and can therefore be taught like any other service. In the ancient Greek the artist had a little social standing, whereas, very fast forward in the history of art, the artist in the Renaissance was treated like a god and the time of iconoclasm marks a period where art has been declared to have a magical maleficent power which led to frequent image destruction by the church for religious or political reasons.

(7) Fox, Martin: 2018, Where is Edvard Munch‘s painting, The Scream? Why are there four versions?

When artists mimic their environment, they also mimic their own practice. Through mimicking, we learn. Variations, and sketches of existing art works put into question which version is considered the original, the final, or just a sketch. Edvard Munch produced fours versions of The Scream. The first Scream from 1893 is the most known. The second one from 1895 was probably commissioned. The 1910 version is believe to be a replica after selling the 1893 painting and the 4th version is eventually also dated back to 1893 and could be the actual first version, but is considered less valuable or iconic by art historians than the more familiar one we know now. (7) Copying his own practice was in a way a study to refine and perfection. An indication of self-copy can also be found at another great classic „The Kiss“ by Gustav Klimt which is exposed in the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. By stepping close enough to the painting, a pencil drawn grid becomes visible underneath layers of paint. This grid implicates that Klimt used a small reference image, drew a grid over the reference, then drew a grid to the same ratio over the large surface and then copied each square at a time until the entire image was transferred. This indicates that the original artwork was probably comparably way smaller than the original large version we know now. The revelation of an artist and his tools does not try to minder the quality of his production but puts in question if the genius status liked to connect to an artist is justified when creation is hugely based on practice and can therefore be taught like any other service. In the ancient Greek the artist had a little social standing, whereas, very fast forward in the history of art, the artist in the Renaissance was treated like a god and the time of iconoclasm marks a period where art has been declared to have a magical maleficent power which led to frequent image destruction by the church for religious or political reasons.

(13) Schwartz, Zachary: 2015, Wikipedia’s Co-Founder Is Wikipedia‘s Most Outspoken Critic
(14) Rosenzweig, Roy: 2006, Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia And The Future Of The Past
(15) Bratton, Benjamin: New Perspectives