TITLE: I Stopped Trying to Be Original & My Work Finally Took Off
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1yZi0DjSgg

You know what the problem with creators is? They think they have to be completely original. >> And this is something I like to think about a lot is what what's really original. You know, cuz Cinderella, that's also not originated with Disney or Aladdin or you know, Beauty and the Beast. These all go back. And uh and Shakespeare didn't write the first version of Romeo and Juliet. >> Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. >> Garland wasn't in the original version of The Wizard of Oz. >> Okay. >> There were there were earlier versions, you know? And so I don't know I to me originality is almost a myth. Like >> Mhm. >> everything that any artist creates is >> Chambers mouse. >> drawing so heavily on so many influences that uh and and to me there's nothing wrong with that. That doesn't make it any less valuable. And to me what I look for more is it is the artist uh saying something honest. >> Originality is an illusion. And believing you need to be original keeps you stuck. Stuck. Stuck. Nothing you make is new anyway. Social media has made it possible for you to see that anything you come up with, someone else has a similar idea. That shouldn't stop you from putting your version out to the world. It's output over outcome. 3% rule is not advice or a hack. It's a survival tactic. >> My greatest design tool personally is to look what that genre is doing and make it 3% 3 to 5% different. So, it's it's in a way trolling, you know? But what happens when you obsessed with RAM, you like love Mies van der Rohe, and you study the Bauhaus, and you have humor embedded in your work, I think it can get to a higher place. >> 3% as a number is arbitrary. Change one thing, they might change the tempo, change the perspective, change the format, change the context, or change the audience. Everything else should be recognizable. Be original enough to feel new, but familiar enough to connect. Innovation is how new something is. Perception is how new something feels. >> I love trying to move things forward, which means innovating. I think people confuse innovation with being different or breaking stuff. I have no interest in breaking stuff for the sake of breaking stuff. I'm interested if things get broken as a consequence of actually creating something better. I think it's part of the human condition is that we assume that progress and innovation is sort of inevitable. And you know that it's not. You know that you have to have this underlying conviction, which is fuel, and then we need an idea and a vision, and then the resolve to make that vision something that is real. >> I mean, something that's too new can be confusing. Something that's too familiar can be boring. But something that's been augmented can be exciting, can be refreshing, can be interesting. If you use the 3% rule, you'll be more productive. I mean, you have creators that ship imperfect work. The thing about being imperfect is that when you do ship your work, the audience becomes part of your team. The feedback you get allows you to be more creative and to make changes. So, you can always implement this 3% rule in iterations, and it will take the pressure off being a creative. How long do you wait to show the public what you've done? When is it ready enough? The 3% rule can make you successful, but it can also trap you into mediocrity. That's why I call it an entry-level tool. It's a way you can get started, but if you abuse the 3% rule, you'll be less unique. Music has a long history of only making small changes. >> Talking about musicians who had to dumb down to play the rock and roll. I'm not not saying it's a bad thing, but it was our job to get a hit for everybody. It didn't matter if if we liked the music or not. You had no feelings about it. It you you took the challenge of being able to create a simple line. That was the fun of it. You you created a simple line to make that tune pop. When that tune could could could pop, you knew you had something. I added a couple notes, but the middle part was something like that. It was written like that. So, I added notes like samba. See, da da da da da da da da. So, I added the note and it and it made it cook more, but you do it according to what's going on around you. And yeah, there there there is camaraderie. When things started to gel, we'd look at each other like, "Yeah, this is fun." >> People use the same poor core progression over and over and over again. And they might change one thing. They might change the tempo. They might change the instrument that they play the chords with, but it's the same chords. Most films have the same archetype. Even the story structure is the same. Maybe the setting is different. Different actors. Slightly different dialogue, but the tone is the same. But look at these scenes. The clock repair guy. What does that tell you? The watch repair, the clock repair, it's a metaphor. You're running out of time. It's a mechanic. That means the clock repair person can fix your problems. It's a metaphor for precision. And of course, the clock repair and the watch repair guy is living a double life. They're actually living the criminal life and part of the criminal world. This is a common thing in films. >> I'm Australian, you? >> Oh, please. >> Don't worry about it. >> You didn't come here for the watch. >> And you see the clock being used as a sense of urgency. This is a common trope. This is something that's been done over and over and over again. And it's changed enough in every film or every TV show that people are comfortable with the change. It feels different even though if you zoom out and you look at it as a whole, it's the same scene. >> See, I should I should take him, Joe. >> Oh. Be in touch. >> If the people can't recognize it, then you lose. Don't make the audience work so hard. People don't really care who was the first one to do it. So only having a small change to a familiar item will feel new to them. I believe this guy's name is Mino Aidan. He's a photographer. He decided to shoot from a different perspective. All of them are from the top-down perspective. It stops the scroll. That is a 3% change that separates him from a lot of other photographers. Taking one style and you're taking another style and you're combining them. It looks new. Everyone has an influence on everyone. You don't really operate in a bubble. You see things that stimulate you and inspire you and you use those things. >> When you make something you put it together. You assemble parts or you carve an image out of wood or stone working from the outside to the inside. >> Even the people we love that we think are like totally original, you'll see visual references that they took from somewhere else. Innovation itself is a continuum. There are four principles that I remember from innovation. Innovation has to enhance something. That's one principle. Another principle is it has to destroy something old. Another principle for innovation is that it returns us to something that we feel like we lost. The fourth one is that innovation over time becomes anti-innovation. >> The equation for me is you take ordinary life and you add extra attention and you find the extraordinary. So you take the ordinary and you give it extra attention and that leads to the extraordinary. And if you think about like the history of 20th century art, I mean that that was what a lot of it was. It's like you take a Campbell soup can and you point your attention at it, and you change the world. You know, that's that's it. And I think a lot of I think art at its highest level is about you figure out how to help other people see the world the way you do. So, if you go to a David Hockney show, and you spend a couple of hours with David Hockney's paintings, you come outside at the end, and you see the world like David Hockney. And that's the magic. >> Well, you know, I I always loved Gershwin's work, and I think the first time I heard was when I was in elementary school. >> Mhm. >> And I started playing his pieces from easy ones, and uh And I think I when I was maybe 10 or 11, I first tried to play Rhapsody in Blue solo version. And I just I was fascinated by the work, and you know, never never got bored with it, and I still have fun playing it, you know, after so many years. And um cuz I improvised, I started to improvise over what was, you know, written on the paper. Then I realized there are so many songs with the name of blue, you know? >> Mhm. >> So, I started to insert like a couple of different blue songs, you know? >> And uh I think that's how I, you know, arranged the song, you know, with many different um I mean, that was one version, but that there is a like a different version that I just always like to put some like different songs, you know, into the cadenza section. >> As I always say, I can make you look, but I can't make you see. Seeing is a choice." This is Brian from The King's Hand. If you want to support my channel, please become a member. If you like my content, please subscribe and hit the notification bell. >> The appointed hand of the king.