Two premises, three questions regarding creativity.
brianlux
Posts: 41,691
Premise one:
The highest quality, most creative output of well known creative people happens before the first half of their career.
My impression is that this is generally true. As examples in music I would cite the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who, R.E.M., Ramones and, yes, Pearl Jam. I think the same is true of many writers- John Steinbeck, Truman Capote, Tom Robbins and even Kurt Vonnegut.
Premise two:
The most influential and creative music has been made by young musicians.
To my way of thinking, most ground breaking work in the arts has been created by relatively young people. I was thinking about this last night while listening to Television's "Marquee Moon". Jimi Hendrix is another good example.
The Questions:
1. Do you agree with the premises?
2. If so, why is that so?
3. What examples can you think of that run counter to these premises?
The highest quality, most creative output of well known creative people happens before the first half of their career.
My impression is that this is generally true. As examples in music I would cite the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who, R.E.M., Ramones and, yes, Pearl Jam. I think the same is true of many writers- John Steinbeck, Truman Capote, Tom Robbins and even Kurt Vonnegut.
Premise two:
The most influential and creative music has been made by young musicians.
To my way of thinking, most ground breaking work in the arts has been created by relatively young people. I was thinking about this last night while listening to Television's "Marquee Moon". Jimi Hendrix is another good example.
The Questions:
1. Do you agree with the premises?
2. If so, why is that so?
3. What examples can you think of that run counter to these premises?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i know when i was younger, i was alot more creative. i think as people age, we develop habits, and get stuck in our ways which makes it harder to be creative and try new things...not always true and not 100% true, but generally speaking...i think it's true.
also as consumers of music/art, we decide we like a band and we expect a certain vibe/sound from them, so if/when they change it, we venture other places because that band no longer meets the expectations that we put on them.
Well i was gona respond but i think 81 nails it.
People are generally less angry/frustrated/hungry when they are older vs. when they are younger. (At least that has been my observation with people I know.)
I think the best art tends to come from angry/frustrated/hungry people. (I am sure there are exceptions but it fits your premises.)
Pearl Jam, well: Green River 1984-1988--->MLB 1988-1990--->PJ 1990-today. So would you say the first part of Jeff and Stone's career was bigger than PJ?
the second premise I would agree with more, to a point. I only agree if the young musician actually created/wrote the music themselves. The Doors, Nirvana, PJ...when they were younger. When I was listening to them, the music was such a powerful connection, "they were feeling how I felt". I wrote lots of words and feelings in a book at that age, and the wording is so powerful. I couldn't write like that anymore, because as a young person, your brain and emotions are still riding a roller coaster, as you age, you settle into a groove.
Many of the fans that are older still like PJ I think because they remember the 'connection' they had with the band, the music 'spoke' to us in a way that we understood, and we can still get that feeling.
the crap shit pop music that I listened to when I was younger, I can't stand listening to it now. It didn't have 'feeling', it was cookie cutter, mass produced 'this is what you should like' crap, that the singers (they are NOT artists) didn't write themselves...stuff written by someone who was probably in their 40s. Just like most of the crap they pump out today.
- Christopher McCandless
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
2nd-I disagree music or art is best made by young people. I think theres something to that idea, but its not completely accurate. Ive seen youth on stage, destroying instruments, jumping up and down, playing fast and loud, and in those instances it brings a shot of adrenaline and joy that strikes you and brings goosebumps to your body. Its life affirming. Thats why art involving and created by youth continues to inspire. James Dean, Jimi, Kurt, Elvis's early years, its filled with a passion that is unrivaled and you can feel it.
But If you are 30 or 40 or 80 or 90 for that matter you can and history is filled with many artists of all mediums who took up the guitar at 30 or started making films at 50 or wrote their first book at 70. I think the big issue is the beginning period. If you pick up a guitar at 11, the first few years of being terrible at it, of being a beginner and making mistakes is hidden from the public at large. Thats a stage all creative people go through. But say you are a young actor in your first film and the film is a huge hit, the growth stages of the creative process will not be private. And thats tough. additionally if you are 40 and pick up the guitar, not too many people can stay in their room and practice 8 hours a day like you could at 13 or something, so again, the growth time is public. You have a job, you are married, you have kids, so its harder to do that stuff. But it can and still is done by many people. Its as Malcolm Gladwell talked about. To be good at something you need 10,000 hours practice. If you start at 11, you can get those 10,000 hours done without anyone noticing. If you start writing at 50, its alot harder to go through the growth pains without it being public.
Sylvester Stallone was working in a deli at age 30 when he wrote then starred in rocky. Harrison Ford didnt find success until 35 in Star Wars. Jon Hamm was 29 when he got his first role, and didnt become Don Draper until 35. Then there are many examples of artists who never found success at all IN THEIR LIFETIMES-Nick Drake is a major example, he was forgotten in his time, and wasnt until that VW commercial in 1999 that he became the well respected musician he is today. Van Gogh didnt start painting until his late 20's. Boccelli's music started making waves when he was 41. monet didnt find success until 34, and didnt start painting his most famous work until 40. Cezanne gained success at 34, but his last few years are his most famous. Josh Radin studyied painting at Northwestern, and most of his friends didnt even know he was a songwriter, he sang privately to his friends. One of his friends was Zach Braff. He didnt have a label or any contract, and Zach got the creators of Scrubs to use one of Josh's songs during an emotional scene in the show. That night the Scrubs website crashed from so many people trying to find out who sang the song and where they could buy his album-he didnt have an album out yet. Mat Kearney the musician didnt start playing music until in his 20's in college, and now his music is used on tv shows and in movies. Leonard Cohen started making albums in his 30's. Dr Suess was 34, and didnt find success until 41. Robert Frost didnt start publishing until 40. Susan Boyle come out of "nowhere" at 47. Kandinsky in his 30's. Hitchcocks greatest creative run happened in his 50's and 60's. Jonathon Safran Foer didnt find success until 32. Judi Dench, Annette Benning, Ian Mckellen, Robert Duvall, Johnny Depp, Melissa Leo,Mark Ruffalo, Mark Wahlberg, Bryan Cranston, all are example of actors who found huge success in later adventures of their career. Sam Beam was a teacher before trying his hand at music and became Iron and Wine. Virginia Woolf. Daniel Day Lewis, Chris Cooper. Brando. Paul Thomas Anderson. Dustin Hoffmans best films are his mid period work. Tom Cruises work in Vanilla Sky, and Eyes wide Shut, Kubrick. Brad Pitt, Sean penn, Terrence Malick
Its a myth you have to be young to find success in creative endeavors, nor do you have to be young to create meaningful and lasting and important works of art.
i think its the opposite. To break into the industry, in any medium you may need to do commercial work. There arent many Fugazi's or Daniel Day Lewis's around. DDL has been in what 4 films since 1997? All have been hailed.
George Clooney who is a great example of putting out great work in his later career, has flat out said he does the more commercial films and ads so he can finance the more "important" films he does like syriana, michael clayton, good night and good luck etc... You see that quite often actually. People work years and years doing the commercial stuff then as a result of that work have the ability to do anything they want and can be picky and choosy. Someone like Johnny Depp. Or DDL or Deniro. None seem to care how the public views their films, they choose projects they like and thats it. Although this doesnt fit the idea of later creative work-You see that right now happening with teen heartthrobs like Zac Efron and Selena Gomez who this year have both done indie experimental films to try. I have no doubt they view things alot like Clooney does, that their early success in more commercial fare allowed them to do these indie films.
Greta Gerwig and Praker Posey also come to mind in terms of success found later in careers. Radiohead and Tool continue to make important music well into their careers.
I personally don;t view actors and actresses as artists but everyone has their own opinions.
i find that interesting. I find them to be artists without a doubt. When people talk about "going into the arts" mostly they mean acting. And of course Theater if often called Theater Arts. Its a craft and is engaging the creative spirit. I assume you view writers as artists. So screenwriters and directors and creators writing out the movie would be art. And directors. Deciding where the camera goes and how its shot would be creative and requires a creative vision. Why then wouldnt actors be? If you watch StreetCar named Desire to me Brando's performance is truly and completely art of the highest quality. Anyways, for me, painting, drawing, writing, acting, dance, singing, playing an instrument, sewing, knitting, collage all are creative acts.
I think you are perhaps muddling the idea of the artist's best work with their most popular or celebrated works when you generalize and say that their "best" work is done in the first part of their career.
I think that's something to consider before you accept your premises as being TRUE.
In music history, there are many examples of composers who wrote their "greatest" works late in life. These were not necessarily their most popular but they were the works that changed the course of the musical language the most.
For example, Beethoven's music expanded as he aged and the forms he used got bigger. This influenced people that followed more than his early works.
i dont agree at all. if that was true then everyone would quit their creative careers at the age you or I deem is old. And also defining less creative is what needs to be done. People can be creative until their dying breath at age 110. There are people right now in all mediums in their later years 70, 80 and beyond who have successful creative careers and continue to create stuff. This years Cannes Festival's winning film was a film about alzheimers patients and the 2 main actors were 81 and 85. They attended the festival and were present at the press conference. People have a hard time letting an artist change and grow. So if they create a mindblowing first album or first book, everyone is going to compare every book or album after to that first work. And few artists are going to want to replicate the sound or feel or look or theme of that first work. All artists want to grow and change. So in that respect, an artist in any medium who isnt making as big of waves with their later work, probably has less to do with the artist being less creative, and more to do with the publics fickle and stubborn nature. Breaking rules isnt solely an idea of the young artist. Radiohead come to mind. Miles Davis, Contrane. Few artists are going to break rules mining the same terrority, the same album, the same book over and over again. So often the act of merely changing sounds, or trying new territory is breaking rules.
For example, young artists are trying to find their own voices and find their own identity so perhaps that is where the uniqueness comes from in their early works. BUT, on the other hand, a lot of young artists are copying or using an eclectic mix of the works they admire. So, one can say, their drive towards their own voice might be stronger early on, but their lifting of other people's ideas might also be more apparent. There's so much going on!! :? :P !!!
i have a television i am going to turn into a flower pot or something for the garden, maybe a birdbath of sorts
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Many good points throughout too..It mostly depends on the individual obviously.
BUT, I have found two things recently about creative juices.
1. as a hobby writer and a part time musician who writes a lot of lyrics, the right environment has quite a bit to do with it. I used to live in a shitty old house in a bad neighborhood. I had a great setup for writing and a great set up for my band. It was easier back then. I moved to a bigger house in a better neighborhood, but i havent found a good nook in the house to spill it all out. (yet)
2. You know how time goes by faster as you get older? This is a creative problem for me. When I take a step back and lose the responsibilities I've managed to accumulate, I can get the creative juices flowing. But I find it harder as I get older to change gears from work to creative mode (and its exponentially harder if you have the wrong environment.)
I just recently saw a documentary about Leonard Cohen's 1972 Europe tour called Bird on a Wire. Cohen talked about his feelings during the concerts, and about singing songs that he wrote for one special person at one special moment in time. Maybe the acid was clouding his mind a bit at that time and he was over sensitive, and also exhausted by the experience of a tour with a broken PA system. But he felt like he couldn't come on stage and perform these songs without feeling them. He felt like he would betray the audience because he wrote them in a totally different state of mind. He talked of himself as the "broken nightingale". I wonder what it feels like if an artist is forced to meet his old "demons" over and over again. How can you convincingly sing songs of revolt for example if you are part of the establishment? How can you convincingly sing a song about a love that tore you apart when now you are happily married to someone else? But I digress...
I don't think that creativity vanishes with age. I think it can even be fueled by more life experience. I think some artists need some kind of "apprenticeship" to learn their craft, and get the tools to make their art as powerful as can be.
these are among my favorite topics. Ive read, watched, enveloped myself in countless hours of writing/interviews of artists who talk about their process and what they need to do to get into that mindset. Facinating stuff, and I always learn something new no matter how many different things I read about the process
Thanks, Jonny.
Great posts everyone. Thanks for the input. I do still think that most well known creative people seem to run out of steam earlier on. But of course this isn't always true. Oh, and don't think I'm picking on older people because... a-hem.... I'm not so young myself. Personally, I've found some areas of my own creativity have increased. I started playing guitar in 1967 and never got much past strumming chords until a few years ago. In the last few years I've learned to play in open tunings, play some fairly complex pieces and improvise much more creatively. But on the other hand my writing has become more precise and less creative. Go figure.
Oh and I also wasn't picking on the gods named Neil and Bob, PJ etc. They are some of my biggest heroes.
Spoken by a truly creative person.
plus I think in many ways you are doomed creatively if you write more for others as opposed to writing/painting/singing for yourself. So I dont think the idea of creativity dying out is even a valid idea in that respect. You can be a 70 year old having a blast singing and making music, does it really matter if that music isnt as well received by critics or the public, as your previous work when you were a 20 year old? Plus i honestly dont think Neil, Bob, Bruce, DDL, Deniro, or any other artist truely cares if we enjoy their previous work more than their current work. Plus its reason to keep working. If your best work is behind you and you are never going to equal that film you were in back at age 19, when you won the best actor award, what incentive is it to continue working at the craft and to continue appearing in films when you are 30 or 40 or beyond?
We all want our creative works to be well receieved but ultimately I think most artists would agree we have this disposition of NEEDING to get these feelings and ideas out. And they will come out. If they dont come out we die. That speaks to the creative mission or calling. You create art because you have to.
Excellent points here, musicismylife78.
As I've been thinking about this it also occurred to me that maybe some artists early work stands out more because it has more overt energy while the later work becomes more subtle. I have to admit I crave ingenuity and freshness in art. I takes a little more work to appreciating more subtle,mature work but there is often something deeper in that work.
I'm, thinking of a couple of good example of this later work by artists. I saw John Lee Hooker when he was quite old. His hands were gnarled with arthritis and after the first few songs I was thinking "Well, I'm just paying homage being here." But as he loosened up things started cooking. By the end of the show everybody was on their feet and it was like a church blues revival- incredibly moving! Oh, and it didn't hurt that Carlos Santana was sitting in!
The other example is Rembrandt. In his last years Rembrandt was nearly blind and broke and yet he used what he had to create some of his most emotional work- not technically his best, but it was art full of the wisdom of his years and it's my favorite period of his. Sadly, he was buried in a pauper's grave. I've learned a lot about aging more gracefully from his work.
But when I need a kick start- it's rock 'n roll, baby!
I think that hits the nail on the head, brian, about subtlety. Thats what I was hinting at earlier. I love James Dean, early Brando, early period dylan, Jimi, and that youthful energy is always a great inspiration, but the ones who lived, and made it through, changed their work. Dylan isnt creating songs like Subterranean or Tombstone Blues. The sort of rapid fire surreal imagery isnt in the world of Dylan in 2012. And thats fine. He creates fine records and has changed his sound, explored other avenues. If youve seen dylan live in the decade plus, he's always changing the sound of his songs, even the well known ones, morphing them. I dont think he'd say he's slowed down, or that he's less creative than in the 1960's. His work is more subtle. Even Jimi, near the time of his death was moving away from the behind the back, playing guitar with teeth, burning his guitar type stuff and was going towards more subtle sounds and territory, he was playing more blues and slower tempo songs. Brando's passion of On the Waterfront and Streetcar, had changed by the time Godfather hit, or Last Tango. Again, as you say, more subtle. But subtle as you say, doesnt mean shallow or meaningless, its just different, a new theme, a new form, new territory. I dont think thats true of all artists though. Im still in disagreement with the premise that young artists create the best work and that as you age things slow down, or you arent as successful anymore. I just think like anything, your craft and approach, may change or alter.
Neil Young is about as prolific as they come, seems like he has an album out every single year, and the guys gotta be nearing 70.
I guess it really does depend on the artist and the point of view of the viewer/listener. I was thinking that the Ramones were a good case of a band loosing it's creativity after the first three or four albums- but to make 2263 gigs in of itself is an accomplishment hard to beat- but the creative side had pretty much run it's course for them earlier on. Maybe driving Tommy off had something to do with that.
But what about genre creative peaks or creative bursts? I think an argument could be made that genre breakthroughs within various art forms usually start with young artists.
its called getting older.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well ive always agreed with the idea all great things arise from youth ala Not For You, so i in essence agree somewhat with your argument. I think there is something to be said for genre creative peaks or creative bursts. The beatles middle period could be an example of maybe THE textbook definition of creative peaks or bursts. That was maybe 65-67 and they were maybe 25-27 years old.
The power of youth and that youthful created art is important and powerful is something im in complete agreement with. The indie subculture thats swept the nation these last few years is youth created and sustained. So i agree. I go to hundreds of concerts a year, and the ones over the years that have stood out, are the ones that involve some sort of youthful energy onstage.
I just think its all muddied by public perception and whats deemed a hit and whats not. As you pointed out many of the old masters in painting died broke and unknown and only years later found success. Its all so arbitrary in a way.
I just dont think its across the board true that those creative peaks or highs come only or primarily with new/or young artists of any medium. For every young person who created major works of art then disappeared, we can come up with another example of a solid, accalimed artist who sustained and enhanced their craft throughout their careers and lifetimes.
I think you may be confusing or unsure about "losing creativity". All creativity is chasing the muse, but you seem to be suggesting the idea that public acceptance of a work of art equals the artist being abundant in creativity, and that if an work of art isnt accepted or is panned or is a bomb then creativity has lessened or is dead. I disagree with that premise. It could be that all the Ramones were actually happier with their latter works than the first few records. Thats generally what drives all creatives, the chance to better themselves. Theres a reason why most times you ask an artist their favorite film theyve done, or their favorite album theyve done its nearly always the most recent one.
I think its entirely possible to be extremely creative and be penniless and or not have your work be praised. And I think its possible to be extremely successful and have 5 stars in all the magazines, but to not be happy with your creativity and feel blocked.
It varies so much with each artist, its hard to say definitively.
If your measurement of creativity being lessened is if the public views your current work as being inferior to your earlier youthful work, then you are probably right. But I dont think thats the true nature of it all. The publics acceptance of art has no bearing on creativity in the true sense of the term. An artist can feel at their creative peak and feel like they just appeared in their best film yet, or wrote their best book yet, but the public may pan the work.
Your points about public acceptance are well taken. But, oh gosh, first off I don't pay much attention to what the public at large thinks. If I like a popular band- say The Rolling Stones or Pearl Jam- it has nothing to do with mass appeal. Some of my favorite musicians and bands are ones that never received large general public acclaim- New York Dolls, Early Ramones, The Replacements, Mission of Burma, Minutemen, Sandy Bull, Albert Ayler, Sun Ra, Cecil Taylor, Larry Coryell- to name a few. And true, these artists (the ones that survived) created/are creating great excellent works later on in their careers but it seems to me the work that most of them did that had an impact music (even if the public at large never saw it directly) happened in the early years of their career.
Earlier you mentioned Pearl Jam. Personally I don't find them to be as creative in the second half of their career as a band as in the first (again, to me their middle period is peek) but that certainly doesn't mean I don't respect them. I just don't see them forging much new ground. And for me that's ok- they're still doing it after 20+ years.
Neil Young has sort of managed to forge ahead in reverse with Crazy Horse's latest album- going back to roots Americana and spicing those songs with the sound of the Horse. There's really nothing new there but the combination of old songs and fairly typical Horse make for a great album- at least I think so. But I'm not sure I ever get to hear something as fresh and powerful as hearing him do "Down By The River" at Winterland in 1970.
But in any case I think you make a good point in that the artists themselves can be at a creative peak later in their career and not have as big an overt influence on culture or craft.