It’s always been interesting to me that in a world before globalisation, almost every culture, country, or continent ‘invented’ an alcoholic beverage. Rice in Japan, Wheat/Rye in England or Germany, Grapes in France. This was at a time where there was no cross-continent, instant knowledge transfer like there is now, so no one could learn from another. The different beverages – sake, beer, and wine, for example, were all discovered at different times and in different ways, in independent, closed cultures across the world, but people still got drunk and, largely, enjoyed it.
This is the concept of equifinality – the same outcome but different paths to get there – and it doesn’t just happen with alcohol. Agriculture, Weapons, Food and many other major developments in human evolution all lead to the same place but by vastly different means and influences.
What does equifinality mean for art? Well, it means that Felix Mendelssohn can bring a tear to an eye, and so can Charles Dickens. It means Arthur Streeton can reveal a vision of Australia that shows us something different, and so can Joseph Zbukvic. It means that no one medium is ‘better’ than another in expressing something or provoking an audience reaction. It means that, if we focus on the outcome rather than output, we can get there, even if it’s not how we expected it would happen.