UNIQUE, THANKFULLY:

The Art of Being an Original Original: 10 Works With One Common Trait: They're Unique (Tim Page, January 2, 2004, Washington Post)

The word "unique" has been so debased by overuse that some publications have all but forbidden it from their pages. Unique means nothing more nor less than "one of a kind" -- a description that either encompasses so much as to be virtually meaningless (every person, each snowflake is unique on some level) or narrows the spectrum to a point where it becomes impossible to use the word with any assurance (how do you know there has never been a composition for 72 tubas, barking dog and soprano before?).

Still, here are 10 works of art that have a pretty good claim on the dread epithet. They don't have much more than that in common. Some are complex and vastly ambitious, others stark, simple, almost primal. A few have had an influence, usually baleful, on later artists; most, in their sheer, flinty strangeness, have remained monoliths, as mysterious in their way as Stonehenge.

If there is any tie that binds, it is their un-repeatability. It is impossible to imagine a sequel to any of them; they create new forms, live out their lives and then break their own molds. (The same cannot be said of some of the most hallowed masterpieces -- Shakespeare's plays, Bach's choral music, Mozart's symphonies, Chaplin's comedies -- all of which fit gloriously into one continuum or another.) Indeed, it has been argued that the very uniqueness of some of the works on this list is a sign of sterility, that the avenues of expression they seemed to open have usually proven to be cul-de-sacs. Still, if you want these particular goods, there's only one place to get them.

The list is an excellent argument against the value of uniqueness.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 5, 2004 09:02 AM