Does art need to be original?

[Hobbes' Choice]

What an horrendous individual.

I agree.
I wonder what he thinks he is doing here?

[Pluto]

S/he wants to pummel the opponent into submission and then exit the scene triumphantly.

[tenwheels1949]

Everything is derivative. Nothing is original. Not art, not garbage, not ideas. Despite Diogenes.

[White Sky]

Everything is derivative. Nothing is original. Not art, not garbage, not ideas. Despite Diogenes.

Too simplistic. Using your standards, copying a novel word for word, but only changing a letter, would be just as original as a new work. Anything that is somewhat new has some element of originality to it. Something that is decidedly new, like Shakespeare's examinations of humanity in his particular language, are very original.

[Conde Lucanor]

Almost every movie the genius Steven Spielberg made was for big corporations and/or big studios entrenched in the capitalist system. If capitalist taint negated art, none of his films would be Art.

Spielberg may be regarded as a popular filmmaker with perhaps a good ability to entertain the masses with thrilling cinematic sequences. That's what gets big bucks for the film business. For that he might be a genius. As for artistic mastery, hardly.

[Pluto]

It doesn't need to be anything. Originality is used by the system to invigorate itself, like blood to a Dracula. So art that's original can be used by the system to feed itself, this is a problem, because originality in art may be food for a system that requires such to maintain its hold