Creative Comparison

[Jody Schmidt]

Originally Posted by La_

could it be said (correct) that the majority(?) of truly 'good' 'creative' 'artists' (using those terms loosely because it's just so highly subjective - and i don't relate good/creative/artists necessarily with success in sales), are reclusive introverts who spend more time alone with their medium than anyplace else and could care less, really, what they're wearing/looking like. ?

or is that a stereotype ?

la

Arr! They are all stereotypes! Tough to get around them, but if the artist is true I guess they shouldnt care about defining themselves via anything but their output. But, that doesnt always work out 100%. Some directly tie themselves into fashionable or avant garde movements that go beyond their paintings or works, like Andy Warhol. Others that I respect more, like Van Gogh and Renoir, could care less about what theyre wearing. But, again, that is a kind of stereotype in and of itself.

[Keith Russell]

Originally Posted by La_

could it be said (correct) that the majority(?) of truly 'good' 'creative' 'artists' (using those terms loosely because it's just so highly subjective - and i don't relate good/creative/artists necessarily with success in sales), are reclusive introverts who spend more time alone with their medium than anyplace else and could care less, really, what they're wearing/looking like. ?

or is that a stereotype ?

la

I don't know. Opinions vary so greatly as to who is, and who isn't, a "truly" "creative" "good" artist, that it might be true for some folks that their "favourite" "creative" "artists" are all reclusive introverts--

--but many of my favourite artists are pretty social, and seem to love a good party!

[Jody Schmidt]

Originally Posted by Keith Russell

I don't know. Opinions vary so greatly as to who is, and who isn't, a "truly" "creative" "good" artist, that it might be true for some folks that their "favourite" "creative" "artists" are all reclusive introverts--

--but many of my favourite artists are pretty social, and seem to love a good party!

This is a very good and balanced outlook.
Although I find the current media trend of depicting gifted or creative or highly intelligent people as awkward (think Sheldon Cooper, Monk, Bones, Aspergers, etc.), very very disagreeable, it is not that different from the way many see great artists:
As starving, drug addled, reclusive, insane, bipolar, schizophrenic.
The current depiction of social awkwardness is more akin to geekdom and Aspergers than it is to Van Gogh's version of beautiful reclusive madness, but it is a matter of preference ultimately since, are they really that different?
I just like the mad reclusive artist depictions better than the Sheldon Cooper type depictions.

Its all part of the same desire to perceive talented people as different and removed from the general populace. I probably find the current television/film incarnations the most disagreeable because they are the depictions most in my face at the moment. But, if I was alive in 1890, I may fine the beret-wearing artist cliche just as disagreeable since it would be more in my face.

And, as for many great artists loving a good party, that is absolutely true despite any cliche or stereotype to the contrary:
Many, if not most, creative geniuses are reasonably well adjusted.
Matisse, Rousseau, Klee, James, Keats, Wordsworth, Heisenberg come to mind. There are many many more 'normal' great artists and thinkers. As a quick follow up example, from the little biographical information available, I get a sense that most of the great Elizabethan dramatists were run of the mill tavern-going brawlers, fully people of their age in day to day life. And no matter what image someones got goin on of being a reclusive, mad, eccentric, awkward or nerd genius, it is unlikely he or she will rival the greatness of Jonson, Marlowe or Shakespeare.

[fritzie]

If I am remembering correctly from scholarship in this area, among highly creative people, volume of work and quality tend to be correlated (just tend -not always), but this doesn't mean that a normal person will necessarily get good by churning out a lot of stuff. It is just as likely to lead to the ingraining of bad habits.
In terms of highly creative people and eccentricities of one kind or another, two interesting cases come quickly to mind. One is that the word "unconforming" rather than nonconforming is sometimes used. That is, highly creative people are more likely to ignore convention in something like dress or behavior rather than pay attention and choose either to conform or to be different intentionally. The appearance of conforming or not, then, is coincidence rather than intentional.
Second bit is that one predictor of noteworthy creativity is whether someone in ones family (contemporary or older) had some sort of psychopathology. Again, this is not a simple relationship, just one that arises more often than randomness would suggest among highly creative people.

[AllisonR]

Originally Posted by Jody Schmidt

This is a very good and balanced outlook.
Although I find the current media trend of depicting gifted or creative or highly intelligent people as awkward (think Sheldon Cooper, Monk, Bones, Aspergers, etc.), very very disagreeable, it is not that different from the way many see great artists:
As starving, drug addled, reclusive, insane, bipolar, schizophrenic.

Not all artists are reclusive or have mental illness, not even a majority do. But statistically, artist have a greater likelihood of mental illness than the general population. Perhaps the stereotype is exaggerated, but if the shoe fits. Just look here on WC - plenty of artists writing about their MI.

[Jody Schmidt]

One more for fun:

Can you spot the creative person?

Person the left, second rate blogger Cory Doctorow. Person on the right, the master himself, Pablo Picasso.

This one trips up hipsters and indies more than emos and goths, who are more tripped up by the first comparison.

[caldwell.brobeck]

Cory Doctorow is somewhat more than just a "second rate blogger". One may like or dislike his work, but it would be difficult to deny that he is prolific, skilled, and inventive, and his work has been pretty influential.

[Jody Schmidt]

Originally Posted by caldwell.brobeck

Cory Doctorow is somewhat more than just a "second rate blogger". One may like or dislike his work, but it would be difficult to deny that he is prolific, skilled, and inventive, and his work has been pretty influential.

With no genuine disrespect intended and just my opinion:

That bio is the epitome of second rate.

We're talking Picasso here, not Norman Rockwell or some third generation cubist. There are so many other bloggers and internet authors who publish weak fiction after their web presence hits a certain level of renown that it is a bad cliche at this point.

And, I didn't want to imply that he wasn't at all influential, just in a very small time way. But, I could be biased cause I think Poe, Verne, Escher, Blake, Tolkien, Capote, Rockwell and even Dali have something small time about them. Not sure what it is, like being the B Movies of the fine art and literature world.

But, who am I to say? I am nothing and know it, so I am not judging from some elevated standpoint, but from a low one.

[Use Her Name]

I don't understand how "creativity" has a certain "look" anyway. I also can't compare rock bands with visual artists. They look different for different reasons. Also, to have both creativity and so called "goodness" in one artwork (technical perfection?) is tending into "perfect storm" territory. Often pieces-- even the best-- lack "something". I also have a big problem with definitions here. What is "perfect?" What is "Creative?" Who is choosing that definition. You could say DeKooning is more "whirly" than Bacon, who is "mushier" than Picasso, who is more "spammy" than either one of them. If you go to concrete terms, you can talk about the lines, the forms, the gestures, the colors. As far as their taste in clothing, eyewear, gin tonics, or pantaloons, it is up to the culture and the time. For all I know of the era, Renoir could be wearing the equivalent of "Hot Topic" clothing. Also remember that photographs were taken in "Sunday best" so called, and there was no such a thing as a snap-shot of random teenagers looking all emo.

Anyway. I rarely make sense.

[Jody Schmidt]

Originally Posted by Use Her Name

I don't understand how "creativity" has a certain "look" anyway. I also can't compare rock bands with visual artists. They look different for different reasons. Also, to have both creativity and so called "goodness" in one artwork (technical perfection?) is tending into "perfect storm" territory. Often pieces-- even the best-- lack "something". I also have a big problem with definitions here. What is "perfect?" What is "Creative?" Who is choosing that definition. You could say DeKooning is more "whirly" than Bacon, who is "mushier" than Picasso, who is more "spammy" than either one of them. If you go to concrete terms, you can talk about the lines, the forms, the gestures, the colors. As far as their taste in clothing, eyewear, gin tonics, or pantaloons, it is up to the culture and the time. For all I know of the era, Renoir could be wearing the equivalent of "Hot Topic" clothing. Also remember that photographs were taken in "Sunday best" so called, and there was no such a thing as a snap-shot of random teenagers looking all emo.

Anyway. I rarely make sense.

This all makes sense. True about pop music stars compared to painters: image and fashion matters more for one than the other, but a good fashion sense still doesnt indicate true originality in music or visual artforms. A new fashion to go along with a new musical style is its own form of very-minor-originality, but it rarely correlates with originality in the music itself. That is where the problem lies.

With only cursory and anecdotal evidence, it seems that (due to mass communication and the universality of trends and fashions) more people today than ever in human history falsely correlate 3 particular outdated and templated looks with creativity (hipster, goth, emo). There is no doubt about it. The uncertainty is in how long it will persist and how pervasive it really is.

As for Renoir, I did think of that! I think the beret wearing artist with a palette in hand would be closer to a cliche Hot Topic uniform than the Sunday Best worn by Renoir in the photo.

And, the worst uncoolness of it all is that, just as these mass conformist movements are bragging about how unique they are, sociologists and other social sciences academics fear that due to such mass culture movements and fashion, individuality is being threatened.

They see a horror show when they see 1000000000 people from 100 cities and countries the world over all wearing the same emo/goth/hipster attire and listening to the same music due to mass communication and promoting the same worn opinions as radical and anti-establishment or rebellious. It is close to tragic, but it is not yet tragic.

Also, another negative reality of these movements is how stagnant they are:
Emo was big in 2002 and is still big and relevant now, with little change in music or style, as if nothing has happened since then. It would be as if people in 1968 were rocking to Elvis as if it was 1958.

[fritzie]

I don't worry about anyone's attire, but I admit to frustration at "the same worn opinions." This is not specifically a problem of youth. In an article last week that I have misplaced about Neotribalism, the author argues that there is an increasing tendency for groups to form who continuously confirm each others biases, all the while mistaking that for wisdom or what you might call anti-establishment, enlightened disposition. It is the opposite of openness and in that the opposite of an environment conducive to creative thinking and work.

[brianvds]

Hey, which one of these two young musicians looks the most promising? Hint: at the time these pictures were taken/painted, one of them could fluently play such works as Bach's "Well-tempered clavier" and had composed a set of pretty impressive piano quartets. The other, er, could not, but had entered the fantasy life of millions of teenagers.

[Jody Schmidt]

Originally Posted by brianvds

Hey, which one of these two young musicians looks the most promising? Hint: at the time these pictures were taken/painted, one of them could fluently play such works as Bach's "Well-tempered clavier" and had composed a set of pretty impressive piano quartets. The other, er, could not, but had entered the fantasy life of millions of teenagers.

Ha! Beautiful. There is a definite humor about this whole thing, though I get caught up in posting and lose sight of it from time to time. Excellent!

[opainter]

Originally Posted by fritzie

[Neotribalism] is the opposite of openness and in that the opposite of an environment conducive to creative thinking and work.

=> I don't know. "The new tribalists use the term 'tribalism' not in its widely thought of derogatory sense, but to refer to what they see as the defining characteristics of tribal life: namely, an open, egalitarian, classless and cooperative community." (Tribalism and "New Tribalism" Wikipedia article, italics mine)

The Occupy Movement is, under the new rubric, "New Tribal Revolution," trying to make New Tribalism their own. You might think that New Tribalism is a new idea. Not so! Both the idea and the term were introduced to the general public back in 1970 by Alvin Toffler in his book Future Shock, which was a best-seller. A big fan of Toffler just happens to be conservative US politician (and former House Speaker) Newt Gingrich, who just happens to be the political and ideological polar opposite of the Occupy Movement.

[fritzie]

opainter, you are right that tribes will be different. Some may be open, classless, cooperative, and egalitarian. Others may claim that they are while truly being open only to those who fit a narrowly defined mold, where people can say anything - along as it agrees with what the chief is thinking. Others cohere mainly by focusing on opposition to the caricature of an "other." Some tribes definitely have chiefs and various levels of status that may have little to do with growth along dimensions of commonly held values and a lot to do with the convenience of the powerful.
So the word tribe, now a very overused word, encompasses many possibilities.
But we have gone somewhat far afield of the focus of this thread.