I have encountered confusion from the public regarding the correct meaning of the term “an original” regarding art. To find the definition which I consider accurate, we must look at the root word of the term...“origin.” This means: (A) source, or (B) beginning. Another word referring to the same root word is “originator” This means creator, inventor, maker or author. I have known since high school that when doing a painting from another artist’s image, whether copying someone else's photo or artwork, that the artwork can not be considered an original. For, in order to be an original, you have to be the source of the concept, the design, and of the actual work...or “original in concept, design, and execution.”...in which all the respectable fine art fairs insist upon. Copying someone else’s art is plagiarism, and therefore it would not be an original.  Even if someone copies another artist's artwork, but makes some changes so that it would be “unique,” it would not be considered an original. So being "unique" does not make an original, and an original does not have to be unique.  If "not unique" meant "not original," then I could make any piece of art in museums "not original," simply by painting another one myself.  Webster’s dictionary also defines the noun “original,” as “any work composed firsthand.” So, if the artist is the only source of the work, then it is “an original.” That is the correct definition for art, (which is a noun,) and if an artist makes a piece of art that truly fits this definition, it would be erroneous for anyone to refer to it as “not an original.” While it is true that one can look up the word "original" and find that the adjective definitions of “original” can mean first, or also unique; a piece of art can be an original (Noun) without being first, or unique, (Adjectives.) A second attempt is still an original, even though it may not be first or unique, as long as it is a genuine example of the artist’s work. The noun is not the same as the adjective. Just like a green orange is still an orange (Noun) even though it is not orange (Adjective.) In fact, one adjective definition contradicts the other, for the word “first” implies several, and so “not unique.” Also...fine art prints; (not to be confused with “mechanical reproductions,” which are not originals) such as lithographs, etchings, relief-prints and screen-prints, when done as a numbered edition, are still lawfully and correctly deemed “originals.” Because, according to “Art Law” The Guide for Collectors, Investors, Dealers and Artists, 2nd Ed. by The Practicing Law Institute, if the artist is solely responsible for creating, designing and applying the image, or has only incidental assistance, “the fine print should undoubtedly be deemed original.” If an original truly had to be unique, this law wouldn't be so, and if an original had to be the first, only the first of the numbered edition could be an original. But this is not so for the entire edition is made up of “multiple originals,” a term that would not exist if originals had to unique, for it would be an oxymoron. But originals don’t have to be “unique,” and hence, can be multiples.

I believe that if an artist had only one chance to be original,  the world would be devoid of masterpieces that could be labeled “original.” Because the sketches and thumbnail studies done “first,” vital to perfecting his ideas would be “the original,” and then the masterwork would be “not original”  anymore. I think this idea is wrong, for the masterpiece has the most work put into it, and it is the artist’s sole involvement and work that make it an original of his, and thus its value. It is in fact impossible for well planned art to be the first attempt...for the planning always precedes it.  When an artist creates something, it is his goal and right to pursue his idea to its fullest potential, just like an author has the right to proofread his own writings. It would be unfair to say that an artist has only one attempt to get his ideas down, for the first effort at something is never the best. Compositions, like mine, take planning.  Mozart wouldn't be expected to sit down at the piano and churn out a symphany on the very first playing...and niether should a painter.  It takes multiple efforts to make a masterpiece in any art form, or with any idea. Thomas Edison's first (original) lightbuld didn't work.  If he said to himself, "...well, I can't do another one or it wouldn't be an original idea anymore"....then we would still be in the dark.  Although there can only be one “first”, first is a relative thing. A “second attempt” of an artist’s original concept is still an original painting. A second version results from the artist’s need and right to improve and grow. And even for the definition as unique, an improved painting is obviously different than a previous, lesser painting, because it has to be different to be “improved.” I have never done two paintings exactly alike.  To the common observer, two pieces may be the same...but I am very particular about my art, and very observant...so much so that the differences between two paintings will be like night and day to me.  The value of one’s art is not decreased, but increased, by further development of his ideas. For if the artist only makes imperfect first attempts, there are no valuable masterworks, and so the artist would be less known and all his work less valued. And the first attempts would be less valued, for they didn‘t lead to anything great or come from the artist known for creating the masterworks. So the buyer of art from an artist should want that particular artist to create art of the highest caliber, even if it means that they have a painting that was later improved on another attempt.  It is selfish for the collector to say, "I want the only one!"...and in fact hurtful to themselves to expect the artist to not improve...for the art they have will be more valued if the artist's work becomes masterful.  An artist has the opportunity to only make a limited number of paintings in his lifetime,  and this limitation is all the buyer is entitled to when they buy original art, for if the artist can’t make his art the best way he can, then the artist and the public has been cheated. If Vincent VanGogh paints sunflowers with his own hand, it is an original Vincent VanGogh painting. Some people think that if they purchase that painting that he couldn’t have done another one and call it an original. But unless or until the artist sells or waives the copyright, it is still the artist's right, and only his right to use his images as much as he wishes. What they bought was the labor and the results of that specific and particular labor...the work...or that painting. So if Vincent VanGogh paints another painting of sunflowers similar to it, it is, again, an original Vicent VanGogh painting. The value of owning an original piece of art from an artist is that that specific person did the work involved in creating it, not that it is unique. To say that no one else can own another is a myth, and is stepping on the rights of the artist to use his own original ideas and images.  Another example of the usage of the word original is regarding autographs. If Michael Jordan signs his own name, it is considered “an original” signature. It would be absurd to say that he has to sign his name differently each time for it to be an original, as it also would be absurd to say that only the first time he ever signed his name is the only original. But if someone else signs Michael Jordan’s name like he does, it is a “fake” and “not an original” because it didn’t come from him...it has to be “from him” to be an original. It is the same for art.