on copy-cats

ive been thinking about copy-cats.

literature today is a landmine of the same work released over and over again for publication, and, as a society, we engage with the same ideas over and over again with the same amount of fervor.

media today mimics the last viral video, and the first viral video was made years ago.

all of what we are, of what we create, has already been done before. now, more than ever. years ago, we could have called it just literature, or music, but today it’s who we are on an individual basis.

individuality is dying.

the clothes we wear, the music we listen to, the books that we read, the things we want the world to see about us—it’s not us. not really.

who are we without someone whispering to us what’s in vogue? and if we set the trend, who are we once everyone starts to follow it?

all of these thoughts took me back to an age-old question.

do we mimic art, or does our art mimic us? art, here, meaning literal works of art-literature, music, paintings-but also meaning media-videos, captions, pictures on platforms, etc.

the first thing that was ever created mimicked us, you could argue.

but what of today? are we mostly just mimicking art, now? is humanity out of unique ideas?

---

i read a book titled the story of more. it addressed today’s society and our need for abundance, regardless of all that we already have.

i believe that our loss of individuality was subsequent to this issue. we are always hungry for more. we’ve lost patience. we dig out content of our own and we eat other people’s content quicker than we can manage. quantity over quality. that’s what the story of more is about.

when will we slow down and take ourselves back?

are we bound to become one?

maybe more thoughts on this later.