Is Art Limited?

[Hoofhurr]

I guess I just don't understand the metric you are using to really differentiate two pieces of artwork. How many distinguishing characters do they need to possess to be considered different and if different, then original?

You can draw a common thread and find common elements between any two pieces of art. You have novels and comics and then you have graphic novels. Aficionados of graphic novels would tell you that while they borrow elements from both novels and comics they are original works in their own right because of the unique medium.

I wouldn't call the Lord of the Rings movies original in the sense that they are book adaptations but I would call them original in the sense that they are probably the first high fantasy movies that were done with care and proper funding and set a new standard for fantasy movies well into the future.

Does everything have to be as original as the Theory of Relativity for it to be considered original?

Tupac and the dixie chicks have more in common musically than Bach and Mozart? I disagree. More importantly Bach and Mozart are simply the most well known representatives from their respective classical genres and while they characterize those periods for modern listeners they certainly didn't create their music out of thin air. They were very much influenced by other musicians and the style of the time.