Two premises, three questions regarding creativity.

brianlux

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?

81

i would agree....

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.

BinauralJam

81 wrote:

i would agree....

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.

brianlux

I just asked my wife about this and her reply was, "When you're young it's about breaking rules. That and you haven't been around long enough to get stuck [similar to what 81 said]". I thought the part about "breaking rules" was a great answer. Still, it perplexes me a bit that as we age we gain wisdom and knowledge but seem to become less creative.

81

Crow....she didn't make it big until she was older.

F Me In The Brain

Yes, I agree with both premises.

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.)

RKCNDY

mmmm....I dunno about the first premise. Some bands are around for YEARS before they hit it big. Like No Doubt (yes I listened to them-I like chick bands). They were a ska band for what, 12 years until they broke out with 'Just a Girl'.

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.

DS1119

I honestly believe it's money. The more money an artist has (and I think this holds true with many professions) they less they feel they need to buck the system. I wonder how your question translates into the science and technology sectors?

mfc2006

i'm a musician & i feel like i'm a helluva lot more creative now compared to when i started playing/writing music. this goes for my lyrics as well. for me, life experience has led to being more creative.

musicismylife78

I disagree. Those are great examples for people who had creatively impassioned first halfs of their careers, but you ignore the many folks, in all creative mediums who got into it young and continue to make critically acclaimed and important music later in life. Neil Young, Bruce, Bob Dylan, Wilco. Bob Dylans last 4 or 5 records have been as hailed as anything he's ever made.

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.

musicismylife78

DS1119 wrote:

I honestly believe it's money. The more money an artist has (and I think this holds true with many professions) they less they feel they need to buck the system. I wonder how your question translates into the science and technology sectors?

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.

DS1119

musicismylife78 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I honestly believe it's money. The more money an artist has (and I think this holds true with many professions) they less they feel they need to buck the system. I wonder how your question translates into the science and technology sectors?

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.

musicismylife78

i think the fear of being too old to create art stops way too many people from being creative. As Julia Cameron put it, to paraphrase, if you sit around and bemoan the fact you didnt start playing guitar at age 4, nothing will get done. You can start playing at age 45, but unless you start playing and pick up the instrument we cant learn. You can be 50 and never pick up a pen because you feel all writers were younger when they started writing, or you can pick up the pen NOW and start writing.

musicismylife78

DS1119 wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

I honestly believe it's money. The more money an artist has (and I think this holds true with many professions) they less they feel they need to buck the system. I wonder how your question translates into the science and technology sectors?

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.

justam

brianlux wrote:

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?

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.

musicismylife78

brianlux wrote:

I just asked my wife about this and her reply was, "When you're young it's about breaking rules. That and you haven't been around long enough to get stuck [similar to what 81 said]". I thought the part about "breaking rules" was a great answer. Still, it perplexes me a bit that as we age we gain wisdom and knowledge but seem to become less creative.

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.

justam

As I sit here and wonder about all this, I notice that there are many different things to think of in relation to this question.

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 !!!

chadwick

this is why i put chairs, speakers and a door on the ceiling and put a writing desk in the pantry. always, always, and i mean always every single time do the oddest shit you can think of. you will inspire yourself (and others) and you will reach newer heights of creativity

i have a television i am going to turn into a flower pot or something for the garden, maybe a birdbath of sorts

JonnyPistachio

Great thread Brian. I think about this all the time.

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.)

Leezestarr313

This is an interesting topic. I think that at every age, some kind of creativity is set free. But maybe the motivation changes. And it also lies in the eyes of the beholder, the reader or the audience. What fueled the creativity of an artist at a young age, like thoughts of revolt and opposition, questioning standards, testing boundaries etc might be challenged once he get older, maybe tainted by the hardships of love gone bad, and more established in society and family life.
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.

musicismylife78

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Great thread Brian. I think about this all the time.

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.)

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