In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within

that field. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

*** The emphasis that modern cultures often place upon the idea of originality in many fields can seem to imply that success in any endeavor is defined by the degree to which its results are dissimilar from others in its fieldthat uniqueness and perceived novelty, rather than virtuosity of execution or any other considerations, determine the significance of an achievement. This point of view would hold that, rather than leading to the possibility of making significant contributions, the influence of past achievements in a field would impinge on the originality of any new attempts. It would argue that purity of personal inspiration, of originality rather than training and influence, is the determining factor of significance. To a degree, it is true that simply replicating previous achievements in a field without adding personal expression cannot lead to genuinely significant new contributions. But a vast gulf lies between the act of slavish copying and the quixotic attempt to produce perfectly original, unalloyed and unassisted expressionand in this gulf is located nearly every genuinely significant contribution in nearly every field. This is because the influence of past achievements in a field, so far from tainting the originality of a new attempt, is not only helpful but fundamentally unavoidable. For example, the very idea of a field of endeavor is defined by the history of previous achievements in that field there are no abstract concepts of art or business or government or education that are purely separate from all human efforts in those fields. New genres and subgenres within a field can perhaps be created by an individual, but entire fields are defined much more by the collective history of those working within them than by anything resembling a statement of focus. Art, for example, is so nebulously defined as to have an entire branch of theory concerned with defining itbut if a historical rather than abstract or theoretical approach is taken, defining art becomes clear and easy. What this means is that the mere attempt to work within a fieldsignificantly or otherwisealready implies substantial influence from past achievements within the field. Without this influence, even the concept of working within a field would be impossible. But less generally, the discussion of whether influence of past achievements within a field leads to more or less significant contributions also leads to the conclusion that these influences are necessary. This is because anyone who deliberately tries to avoid the influences of others within her field (however fundamentally impossible that attempt may be) is essentially refusing education and training. Therefore, she will focus most of her attention on aspects of her craft that do not merit such absorption. Rather than leading to originality, this attempt would lead (for example) to an artist spending years of effort learning how to realistically draw cityscapes, and arriving at the ingenious development of multi-point perspective. This imaginary artist has, in the attempt to protect her originality from the influences of past achievements in the fields

of art and draughtsmanship, spent what might have been considerable native gifts in reinventing the wheel. What originality she may have is far from obviousit is hidden by her lack of outside influences in the form of training, with the result that her contribution fails to be significant. To restate this point: the attempt to avoid the influence of past achievements within a field will likely result in mediocre rather than significant output, due to the fact that the capacity for achievement is being absorbed by a lack of training. Those who agree that the influences of past achievements are necessary to those attempting to make significant achievements within a field support this point by the fact that they often do achieve the significant contributions they seek to make. Their contributions, even when the degree to which they are influenced approaches that of homage, are often seen as original. For example, Quentin Tarantinos distinctive style of film has led to his being called one of the most original of modern directors; but it is marked by tremendous influences from past ages of cinema. On a broader level, the cultural explosion of the Renaissance was largely prompted by the influence of Classical culture on that of early modern Europe. Overall, it is not only theoretically but practically impossible to make significant achievements within a field without the influences of significant achievements of the past; and those who seek to contribute to any field should act in view of this fact.