Further, and taking the subject to new heights, Michael Marr, a literary scholar, has discovered a novella, published in 1916 by German author Heinz von Eschwege that bears overwhelming similarities to a literary classic. Von Eschwege's novella concerns a lodger holidaying in Spain who becomes obsessed with his landlord's daughter, Lolita, who dies at the end of the story. Besides the overall plot similarity to Vladimir Nabokov's famous novel, "Lolita," there are many other similarities that are possibly the result of Nabokov and von Eschwege living in the same area of Berlin for fifteen years.

Universities have become so concerned about originality in the theses of their students that there are now web sites offering services to ensure that student work is not plagiarized. Besides a concern for originality in the work of their students, universities have had to monitor the work of their research faculty. Many cases have come to light wherein professors have published research as their own when, in fact, their students have been major unacknowledged contributors to their findings. Retroactive investigation of scientific publications has revealed the effects of social prejudices on copyright. The research of many African American and/or female contributors often went unaccredited in many major scientific papers. I recently read, for example, of how deceitful James Watson and Francis Crick were in their "discovery" of the double helix in human DNA. At least two major thinkers contributing to their "discovery" were unacknowledged including a female senior researcher, Rosalind Franklin, who should have shared in their Nobel Prize. The existence of originality, it seems, is as threatened as many plants and animals. Originality is becoming an endangered achievement.

In the visual art world there is a strong tradition of "appropriation." There have been countless artworks derived from, for example, the Mona Lisa and many other classical masterpieces. Copyright law, however, requires that the appropriator add enough of his or her own vision so as to make the derivative work a new and unique piece. Too much appropriation, and you have visual art plagiarism. Another issue relevant to the subject of authorship and originality in the visual arts is the long history of "studio style" wherein apprentices and assistants worked with artistic masters like Michelangelo to create works solely attributed to the master of the studio. In the visual arts, originality can be a very ambiguous word.

These subjects come to mind as the Vancouver Art Gallery (VAG) moves to open its largest exhibition ever, Massive Change. From all that I have heard in discussions with friends and fellow visual art "junkies," I understood the exhibition to be "by" internationally respected Canadian designer, Bruce Mau. Massive Change, however, appears to me to be a project of the Institute Without Boundaries (IWB) and IWB is a collaborative effort of Bruce Mau Design and George Brown College. It is a one-year course of practical studies in which students work "as a team to research, design and realize a public intellectual project." Massive Change is "a manifesto on the future of design culture. The project includes a traveling exhibition commissioned by the Vancouver Art Gallery, a television project and a book."

I now think that Massive Change is not "by" Bruce Mau. Rather, it appears to me to be "conceived by" or "curated by" Bruce Mau. Much of what we will see in the book, the exhibition, the film and all the other products derived from the project will be by the students of the IWB as well as from contributors solicited through the Massive Change website and its associated advertising. Contributors solicited to participate in the project are told: "By submitting work, contributors are granting all rights to the Massive Change editors to reproduce submissions in all project uses stated above [book, an international exhibition, a line of product, public events, a website, and a documentary film project]. All authors and copyright holders will be given full credit for material that is published."

This copyright caveat clearly advises contributors that their work will become the property of Bruce Mau Design. But from what I have read, it will be more from the students and the contributors than Bruce Mau.

I am not prejudging the exhibition. I am reacting to what I have read on two websites, www.brucemaudesign.com and that of the Massive Change project, www.massivechange.com.

I went to these websites because I am interested in what the city's senior art gallery is doing, and I went partly because the exhibition, scheduled to open this summer, has been deferred until the fall. In moving the timing of the show out of the high tourist season, the show will require heavy attendance from us, the local population, if it is to recover some of the massive expense the VAG undertook in commissioning the show. And because a low percentage of the general population is familiar with the name, "Bruce Mau," the marketing of this show will be interesting. And that's what brings me to the subject of this editorial-authorship and originality and how the show will be "sold" to the public. And "sell" this exhibition, they will; the VAG will have to really sell admissions in order to recover their investment. I hope the exhibition is a tremendous success. If it isn't, the future of the VAG's economic stability, I am sure, will be of concern to many.

If it is sold as a Bruce Mau show, as I suspect it will be, its marketing will have me remember my current concern about creative originality: I fear it is becoming an endangered achievement.

(All quotes in this editorial are from the two websites cited in the article.)