A Serious Question About Creativity....

[PermaNoobie]

give it a try - put the gear away for some time

maybe even do your visual work without music playing

 

and give it some time (90 days just seems like a good first exposure), at first it will probably feel uncomfortable, even alien - that's transitional stuff.

[Parah Salin]

 

music is always on when I am in deep studio mode, it is a huge part of my life, but Painting is my "Work"....somewhere along the way I allowed more distraction in. I have monastic tendencies....I would go weeks without speaking to anyone but my lady probably, if I wasn't forced to deal with the public to scrape out a semi-living.

 

 

If that works for you then that's fine. I don't always take everything my professors say as the truth. Everyone is going to have a different opinion about everything.

[companyman]

I'm not talking about $ either accomplishment doesn't have to be $ and if it was...the arts generally ain't the place to be for that

 

no doubts there!

I have been working as a serious Painter for 25 years (I am counting College and Grad school here, because I was very focused on my work through out) I am determined to work another solid 25 or more to get closer to the impulse.

[seifukusha]

hmm i dont know but im not much in movies and i like tv when i play gtr to distrqact my eyes...

[companyman]

 

If that works for you then that's fine. I don't always take everything my professors say as the truth. Everyone is going to have a different opinion about everything.

 

 

believe me, I have been the professor, I don't accept many truths from others...truth is self- realized/actualized.

[chris_d]

This is true, with one caveat. While every artists' process may be unique, the one common thread among successful artists (by "success" I mean financial but also creative success - i.e., recognized as good/new/unique) - they work really hard at what they do. I first got this when I saw Picasso's pencil drawings of bulls. It was an incredible progression from really busy, intricate drawings to very simple line drawings that were remarkably expressive. Seeing the progression, you could see the idea of what he wanted to do from the very first drawing evolve as he sorted out how to do it. There's no doubt in my mind that the final drawing was what he first imagined, but there's also no doubt in my mind that he had to do the 20 or 30 drawings that preceded it to figure out how to get to his vision. That is a lot of work and you need to do it if you want to be able to achieve that kind of expression.

 

Well, there are certainly parallels or common grounds between successful artists.

 

At the same time, what you might define as "hard work", i might define as "compulsive obsession".

 

End result: Lots of drawings.

 

Is it because Picasso felt he needed to 'work harder' at his art(as it seems the OP is implying), and forced himself to work harder, to work better? Or is it because he simply wasn't capable of leaving the bull subject alone until it looked 'right' to him?

 

I think the distinction might matter. Some people feel that they can substitute work ethic for talent. And perhaps this is true, for some people. Hard working artists can get shows, sell paintings, make interesting work. Other people simply cannot step away from the making of things. FWIW, most of what i consider the more talented artists i have known, have seemed generally to lean more towards the compulsive, than the diligent.

 

All i mean, is that, well, even what few rules you might try to locate, probably don't apply.

 

Also, i think that one of the worst things that art school has ever introduced into the creative field, is this sort of mind game, that encourages artists to continually ask themselves if they are, if their work is: good enough, committed enough, serious enough, capable enough... important enough. Having high standards is one thing. But this sort of self-overanalysis, IMO, is far more detrimental to creative processes, than playing a little guitar on the side is likely to ever be.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Also, i think that one of the worst things that art school has ever introduced into the creative field, is this sort of mind game, that encourages artists to continually ask themselves if they are, if their work is: good enough, committed enough, serious enough, capable enough... important enough. Having high standards is one thing. But this sort of self-overanalysis, IMO, is far more detrimental to creative processes, than playing a little guitar on the side is likely to ever be.

 

 

Quoted for truth.

 

And it's not just visual artists who are guilty of that... a lot of musicians over-analyze too IMO.

[companyman]

Well, there are certainly parallels or common grounds between successful artists. At the same time, what you might define as "hard work", i might define as "compulsive obsession". End result: Lots of drawings. Is it because Picasso felt he needed to 'work harder' at his art(as it seems the OP is implying), and forced himself to work harder, to work better? Or is it because he simply wasn't capable of leaving the bull subject alone until it looked 'right' to him? I think the distinction might matter. Some people feel that they can substitute work ethic for talent. And perhaps this is true, for some people. Hard working artists can get shows, sell paintings, make interesting work. Other people simply cannot step away from the making of things. FWIW, most of what i consider the more talented artists i have known, have seemed generally to lean more towards the compulsive, than the diligent. All i mean, is that, well, even what few rules you might try to locate, probably don't apply. Also, i think that one of the worst things that art school has ever introduced into the creative field, is this sort of mind game, that encourages artists to continually ask themselves if they are, if their work is: good enough, committed enough, serious enough, capable enough... important enough. Having high standards is one thing. But this sort of self-overanalysis, IMO, is far more detrimental to creative processes, than playing a little guitar on the side is likely to ever be.

 

Art school isn't responsible for this last part, examples like Davinci, Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and their ilk are. It was not genius or talent alone that created the canon of masters, it was creative and intellectual rigor.

[companyman]

Also, i think that one of the worst things that art school has ever introduced into the creative field, is this sort of mind game, that encourages artists to continually ask themselves if they are, if their work is: good enough, committed enough, serious enough, capable enough... important enough. Having high standards is one thing. But this sort of self-overanalysis, IMO, is far more detrimental to creative processes, than playing a little guitar on the side is likely to ever be. Quoted for truth. And it's not just visual artists who are guilty of that... a lot of musicians over-analyze too IMO.

 

it is true, I would imagine the great composers were a rather unpleasant rigorous bunch!

[HeartfeltDawn]

I've met a surprising number of talented musicians who would rather be talented painters... myself included.

 

I've met a surprising number of musicians who think they're also talented painters and whom should have stuck to music and never touched a paintbrush

 

One thing I dislike about a lot of current music are media crossovers. Many musicians who paint and write simply don't excel in one field but continue to do so because the online world and advances in technology allow them to do so. Very few modern artists have the ability to do genuinely good work in multiple fields. 'Jack of all trades, master of none' rings very true.

 

The Grandaddy thread today reminds me of that. There was a band of guys focused on the music alone. They'd be very out of place in the current independent music world.

[soulsonic]

I've met a surprising number of musicians who think they're also talented painters and whom should have stuck to music and never touched a paintbrush One thing I dislike about a lot of current music are media crossovers. Many musicians who paint and write simply don't excel in one field but continue to do so because the online world and advances in technology allow them to do so. Very few modern artists have the ability to do genuinely good work in multiple fields. 'Jack of all trades, master of none' rings very true. The Grandaddy thread today reminds me of that. There was a band of guys focused on the music alone. They'd be very out of place in the current independent music world.

You make excellent points all around. Maybe it would have been better if I had phrased my statement as, "I've met a surprising number of talented musicians who are closet mediocre painters... myself included".

[Coach]

Also, i think that one of the worst things that art school has ever introduced into the creative field, is this sort of mind game, that encourages artists to continually ask themselves if they are, if their work is: good enough, committed enough, serious enough, capable enough... important enough. Having high standards is one thing. But this sort of self-overanalysis, IMO, is far more detrimental to creative processes, than playing a little guitar on the side is likely to ever be.

 

I will disagree with that. I think that perpetual self-analysis and compulsion to satisfy that inner drive creative types feel should be entertained and taken as one of the most necessary steps in achieving intellectual and artistic satisfaction (however fleeting that satisfaction is).

 

If we are to assume that there is no end to anything, that forms only re-represent themselves imperfectly throughout time ad infinitum, what is to propel us to ever do anything? I think true artists are eternally haunted by that question, are unsatisfied that the world can be without perfect form, and struggle to oppose that through their work. Without taking seriously the gravity of the artists predicament, a person no longer exists as a creator of art but as a creator of something a whole lot less valuable.

 

This may not be the place to find arguments for dedicating less time toward musical endeavors, but I think the OP knows what he must do and it runs counter to convention around these parts. The idea of well-roundedness as a reason to balance both warrants significant discussion in and of itself, but suffice to say it is a weak argument.

 

OP, do for your art what your muse demands.

[smooff]

is this sort of like the argument that pedals detract you from your musical creativity?

[chris_d]

Art school isn't responsible for this last part, examples like Davinci, Michelangelo, Rubens, Rembrandt and their ilk are. It was not genius or talent alone that created the canon of masters, it was creative and intellectual rigor.

 

Indeed, i should have written "encouraged" rather than "introduced".

 

And i obviously don't dispute that work ethic or rigorous study is going to be an element, has to be an element to the production, well, of anything worth building.

 

But what i am more concerned about, is when i hear creative people starting to write/speak as if they are trying to determine just what exactly the ratio between talent(meaning raw creative impetus here) and skill( here meaning rigorous work ethic-derived ability) for artistic success should be or is. As if there was an answer to the question that they could grasp, and as if, if they could only learn the math of creation correctly, well, then they would be a 'good enough' artist.

 

I only mention it, because, IMO, the question of whether you are "focused on one creative thing enough", really seems to me to be kind of the same question.

[Phil O'Keefe]

While I welcome the idea of introspection and analysis, and the desire to constantly strive for improvement, I think it is possible to be too analytical and introspective, and that when you do so, you risk losing touch with the emotional aspect, the immediacy of artistic expression. The desire to perfect your technique and skills is noble, but the danger is in becoming too cerebral at the expense of the emotion.

 

I want to FEEL your art, not just be wowed by your technical prowess.

[companyman]

Indeed, i should have written "encouraged" rather than "introduced". And i obviously don't dispute that work ethic or rigorous study is going to be an element, has to be an element to the production, well, of anything worth building. But what i am more concerned about, is when i hear creative people starting to write/speak as if they are trying to determine just what exactly the ratio between talent(meaning raw creative impetus here) and skill( here meaning rigorous work ethic-derived ability) for artistic success should be or is. As if there was an answer to the question that they could grasp, and as if, if they could only learn the math of creation correctly, well, then they would be a 'good enough' artist. I only mention it, because, IMO, the question of whether you are "focused on one creative thing enough ", really seems to me to be kind of the same question.

 

well the question I posed in the OP is semi-rhetorical, to seed for a discussion....but I am considering freeing myself of music-making distractions....maybe I don't see myself getting anywhere with it....and I am very broke right now.

[companyman]

 

While I welcome the idea of introspection and analysis, and the desire to constantly strive for improvement, I think it is possible to be too analytical and introspective, and that when you do so, you risk losing touch with the emotional aspect, the immediacy of artistic expression. The desire to perfect your technique and skills is noble, but the danger is in becoming too cerebral at the expense of the emotion. I want to FEEL your art, not just be wowed by your technical prowess.

 

 

I am mostly talking about conceptualism, the development of approach, not developing technical facility. More, where the Art is coming from. Relevancy in contemporary Art, for me is a great deal about polemics, coupled with the corporeal.

[Beef]

Two words to prove your professor wrong: Steven Seagal.

 

[companyman]

 

[YOUTUBE]WEsbY1-9UYg[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

[companyman]

 

I will disagree with that. I think that perpetual self-analysis and compulsion to satisfy that inner drive creative types feel should be entertained and taken as one of the most necessary steps in achieving intellectual and artistic satisfaction (however fleeting that satisfaction is). If we are to assume that there is no end to anything, that forms only re-represent themselves imperfectly throughout time ad infinitum, what is to propel us to ever do anything? I think true artists are eternally haunted by that question, are unsatisfied that the world can be without perfect form, and struggle to oppose that through their work. Without taking seriously the gravity of the artists predicament, a person no longer exists as a creator of art but as a creator of something a whole lot less valuable. This may not be the place to find arguments for dedicating less time toward musical endeavors, but I think the OP knows what he must do and it runs counter to convention around these parts. The idea of well-roundedness as a reason to balance both warrants significant discussion in and of itself, but suffice to say it is a weak argument. OP, do for your art what your muse demands.

 

 

great post is great.

[chris_d]

 

I will disagree with that. I think that perpetual self-analysis and compulsion to satisfy that inner drive creative types feel should be entertained and taken as one of the most necessary steps in achieving intellectual and artistic satisfaction (however fleeting that satisfaction is). If we are to assume that there is no end to anything, that forms only re-represent themselves imperfectly throughout time ad infinitum, what is to propel us to ever do anything? I think true artists are eternally haunted by that question, are unsatisfied that the world can be without perfect form, and struggle to oppose that through their work. Without taking seriously the gravity of the artists predicament, a person no longer exists as a creator of art but as a creator of something a whole lot less valuable.

 

 

Some degree of analysis is necessary. What we are talking about here, is when the analysis threatens to or does in fact, impede the creative process. The OP is talking about ceasing one compulsively creative thing that he already does, in order to try to transfer that impetus to create sound into one to create visual art. Because a teacher told him that he is only going to be able to do one of them, at least to do it: properly.

 

 

 

This may not be the place to find arguments for dedicating less time toward musical endeavors, but I think the OP knows what he must do and it runs counter to convention around these parts. The idea of well-roundedness as a reason to balance both warrants significant discussion in and of itself, but suffice to say it is a weak argument.

 

 

Well-roundedness doesn't come into my viewpoint at all. I am merely operating in the knowledge that the OP currently already compulsively creates sound, as well as pictures. The question he poses, is if it indicates a higher level of seriousness(or what?) on his part, of he shuts down one compulsively activated creative process, so that he can focus more on another.

 

If the impetus to cut out music was a compulsive one dictated by his desire and needs to create visual art INSTEAD, then there would not be this question here. He would simply stop making music. As he may very well do so.

 

But in answer to his original question. No, in my opinion, having more than one creative impulse is not going to be detrimental to any other creative impulse.

[chris_d]

well the question I posed in the OP is semi-rhetorical, to seed for a discussion....but I am considering freeing myself of music-making distractions....maybe I don't see myself getting anywhere with it....and I am very broke right now.

 

Well, i would put it as this: Jettison what you don't NEED.

 

If you don't need music, let it go.

 

IMO, this isn't really the same thing as whether not you are any good at it or going to get anywhere with it.

 

If you need to create sound, you will. If not, you won't. It is very simple, hence my thoughts about where self-analysis, becomes self-OVERanalysis...

 

[companyman]

Well, i would put it as this: Jettison what you don't NEED. If you don't need music, let it go. IMO, this isn't really the same thing as whether not you are any good at it or going to get anywhere with it. If you need to create sound, you will. If not, you won't. It is very simple, hence my thoughts about where self-analysis, becomes self-OVERanalysis...

 

 

 

I think I am aware when I am wasting my time.....I feel like I am not going to get any better at playing guitar, and it doesn't really matter if I do. Painting on the otherhand, each step I take toward it, it takes 2 towards me....then sprints away again just before I reach it, and the process starts over again....like a tango or something...

[EL KABONG]

I think my art enhances my music.

[gorebuc]

 

When I was in grad school, I had a professor (who has since become quite successful in the international Art market), tell me that dalliances in music would be detrimental to my development as a visual Artist. I always have that statement echoing around in my brain each time I pick up the guitar, I feel guilty. Any opinions?

 

 

 

Didn't read the rest of the thread, but {censored} that noise. Further, {censored} "art" or "creative writing" professors acting like they are the gatekeepers of the Muses. The greatest writers and artists didn't/don't have a BFA, MFA, or DFA...and most modern artists who do (and take it too seriously) produce majorly pretentious work. Do what you want...I'm a graduate student in and professor of English and Lord knows my dalliances in music distract from my studies, but that's just my day job, not all of who I am.

 

Also, its called synesthesia...the creative faculties and senses of the human mind cannot be distinctly divided and categorized.