Podcasts Technology ERIC KIM Cliche is that big of a deal

Cliche is that big of a deal

Published: Aug. 31, 2021, 8:15 p.m.

There seems to be this bias everywhere. That is, all clich\xe9s are bad. But are clich\xe9s really that big of a deal? I think not: https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2021/08/31/cliche-is-that-big-of-a-deal/

\nSooner or later, everything is a clich\xe9.\n

What is the word clich\xe9 even mean? If we study the etymology of the word clich\xe9 in French, it literally means copy, stereotype. The sound clich\xe9 is literally the sound of mechanical print clacking. Even a stereotype the notion of a copy.

\n

But ultimately, everything is a copy. Even children are copies of their parents, with their DNA being reconfigured and tell the different ways. Even when I look at the face of Seneca, his nose and mouth is a copy of his moms, and his eyes and face is a copy of mine.

\nIterations or simply slightly remixes copies\n

So what is our goal as artists, creators, and innovators? It isn\u2019t to make totally brand new things, but rather, take what we\u2019re given and slightly create it in different ways. To remix. To up cycle. Just lightly iterate on what has been done in the past.

\n

If you think about biology, specifically human biology, no child is born totally carte blanche or a blank slate. Certainly their physiology in their morphological physical features is a copy of their parents. In certain imprinting of the personality I\u2019m sure is also a copy and a subtle reconfiguration of their parents.

\n

But this is where society is the most interesting human technology, because society and socialization is what reconfigures the personality of a child and human being.

\nArtistic or creative or photography clich\xe9s\n

There is this huge impediment to artists and photographers: that is, the fear of being clich\xe9 or creating a clich\xe9 photo. But why is it such a big deal? I don\u2019t think it is. My theory is the anti-clich\xe9 sentiment is from overzealous artistic nerds who want to flex their art history prowess, rather than to truly judge the authenticity or the love imputed into an artwork.