FA+
Shop
Artistic paranoia
14 years ago
Last year, or maybe it was the year before, people were doing a meme showcasing their artistic devolpment over the previous decade. I opted out of that because I felt my art hadn't changed dramaticly enough over 10 years to make it interesting. Of course, that was taken as an admission that I've been stagnating and haven't improved or changed at all in the last 10 years, esp. compared to the teens and 20-somethings posting.
Getting that out of what I wrote just shows ignorance at how artists develop. For (most of) the artists i know, talent or an interest in art showed itself very early, usually by age 5 or 6. Then in the teen years up until the mid-20's there's a huge explosion of creativity and learning, and there will be dramatic improvements from year to year, or even month to month. Once an artist hits middle age, (30-50) while their work does improve a bit if they keep at it diligently and are open to learning, it tends to level off and not change too much. If you look at the body of work for 'real' artists, such as the old masters or even someone like Robert Bateman, it's pretty easy to tell early, middle, and current work, but if you took a random 10 years of his 'middle' period, you would see very little change from year to year.
Personally, my two art explosive periods occured when i was in my mid-teens (from maybe 14-18) and then again while I was in college in my early to mid 20's. I hit my plateau in my 30's, and still consider myself to be there. I have made subtle improvements and changes, but nothing hugely dramatic.
How long this plateau period lasts depends on the individual. There's some people who's work has not changed one iota in about 30 years, and if you look at peices from the 80's they pretty much look exactly the same as current work. There's some artists that really never get any better, and their work remains awfull no matter how much they draw and practice. There's some artists that maintain a very high standard for decades.
But then there's what all artists dread-- the artistic decline. This generally appears after middle age, but it also shows up in younger people if they abuse drugs or alcohol (oh boy have I seen artist's work fall apart due to this.) , have severe mental or physical health issues, or simply don't care about the quality of their work any more.
The point of all my art rambling is that I know several artists that have seriously hit the 'artistic decline' period, an the quality of their work has plummeted alarmingly. At this point I have no clue if the decline is due to "I don't give a shit any more," or some real physical or cognitive issues that makes them incapable to doing the type of work they once did. I have not said anything to these people, nor will I. If it's involuntary, then pointing it out to them will do no good, and if they just don't give a shit, pointing it out still won't do any good.
But then I wonder, what if no one (meaning friends who's artistic opinions I trust) tells me when my work starts deteriorating? Will I just continue to emabaress myself with shitty work that I'm too out of it to realize how bad it's become?
What to do when you hit he wall artisticly? (and anyone who thinks they won't is deluding themselves.) Will you end up like a famous SF artist who's best work was back in the 50's-70's, but was still hauled around to conventions as a 'beloved icon' for years after, treated patronizingly like an elderly relative, no one willing to tell him his work had gotten embaressingly bad? Or be like Frazetta, who retired and said something to the effect of "I've given people decades of top quality work-- what else do they want from me?"
For the artists in their late teens and early 20's, witness your future.
Getting that out of what I wrote just shows ignorance at how artists develop. For (most of) the artists i know, talent or an interest in art showed itself very early, usually by age 5 or 6. Then in the teen years up until the mid-20's there's a huge explosion of creativity and learning, and there will be dramatic improvements from year to year, or even month to month. Once an artist hits middle age, (30-50) while their work does improve a bit if they keep at it diligently and are open to learning, it tends to level off and not change too much. If you look at the body of work for 'real' artists, such as the old masters or even someone like Robert Bateman, it's pretty easy to tell early, middle, and current work, but if you took a random 10 years of his 'middle' period, you would see very little change from year to year.
Personally, my two art explosive periods occured when i was in my mid-teens (from maybe 14-18) and then again while I was in college in my early to mid 20's. I hit my plateau in my 30's, and still consider myself to be there. I have made subtle improvements and changes, but nothing hugely dramatic.
How long this plateau period lasts depends on the individual. There's some people who's work has not changed one iota in about 30 years, and if you look at peices from the 80's they pretty much look exactly the same as current work. There's some artists that really never get any better, and their work remains awfull no matter how much they draw and practice. There's some artists that maintain a very high standard for decades.
But then there's what all artists dread-- the artistic decline. This generally appears after middle age, but it also shows up in younger people if they abuse drugs or alcohol (oh boy have I seen artist's work fall apart due to this.) , have severe mental or physical health issues, or simply don't care about the quality of their work any more.
The point of all my art rambling is that I know several artists that have seriously hit the 'artistic decline' period, an the quality of their work has plummeted alarmingly. At this point I have no clue if the decline is due to "I don't give a shit any more," or some real physical or cognitive issues that makes them incapable to doing the type of work they once did. I have not said anything to these people, nor will I. If it's involuntary, then pointing it out to them will do no good, and if they just don't give a shit, pointing it out still won't do any good.
But then I wonder, what if no one (meaning friends who's artistic opinions I trust) tells me when my work starts deteriorating? Will I just continue to emabaress myself with shitty work that I'm too out of it to realize how bad it's become?
What to do when you hit he wall artisticly? (and anyone who thinks they won't is deluding themselves.) Will you end up like a famous SF artist who's best work was back in the 50's-70's, but was still hauled around to conventions as a 'beloved icon' for years after, treated patronizingly like an elderly relative, no one willing to tell him his work had gotten embaressingly bad? Or be like Frazetta, who retired and said something to the effect of "I've given people decades of top quality work-- what else do they want from me?"
For the artists in their late teens and early 20's, witness your future.
Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture never got old, nor did he ever hit the creative wall, because he never was satisfied with doing things the way he did them the decade before.
Madonna, Motley Crue, and certain other musical acts have lasted much-longer than they naturally should, because they were willing to reinvent themselves.
Harley Earl was responsible for most of the art in GM cars for some thirty years.
Art is not finite in expression, nor is creativity or imagination.
Do not underestimate your own resources.
Really, honestly, if you read that favorite musician, author or artist has decided to 'reinvent' themselves, or has announced they're taking their work in a 'new direction,' does it produce excitement or dread?
I'm not familiar with FLW's career path, but seeing as he represents the top .001% of architects that ever existed, it's probably not fair to use him as a benchmark for what everyone else can accomplish. For Harley Earl-- I did say the plateau period can last for decades.
Art is not finite, but we are. Cognitive functions break down, the body breaks down, the eyesight goes. The only good thing is as Madonna begat Lady Gaga, there's always the next generation of artists building on what others did before them, even if they can't do it any more.
You just keep posting your shit here on FA or someplace online that I can easily access, Roz. Your Friend & (longtime) Fan, Mr. SOCKS has got your back.
PROTIP: You're not showing any signs of decline right now, baby.
But from the Prairie period through the Textile Block and USonian periods and all the other shit he did, on up to his death, his stuff was always evolving and he was always trying out new shit: floorplans, lighting, motifs, materials.
Him, Disney, and George Gerswhin are my three fave Americans artists. Disney less so, since his actual artistic skills were minimal, but all three possessed an insatiable curiosity and vision and hunger for invention. They were all as much pioneers and fiddlers and tinkerers as they were artists. That's why they were all producing literally until they died (George's brain tumor notwithstanding).
motherhood, which often stops their output dead, even at it's peak. Men don't have that problem, although wealth and success (for a creative male) can also be a death knell. How many male musicains had great music when they were young and poor and angry, which turned dull and boring once they made their millions and got the hot model wife?
The unfulfilled sexual drive tends to be closely linked to the artistic “creative drive“ from what I have seen. The achievement of motherhood for the female and career success for the male seem to provide a pervasive (some might say an insidious) sense of “fulfillment” to both the sexual and creative drives. This fulfillment triggers an inner physical/psychological switch that essentially tells the body and mind that the race is over and that you have succeeded, crossed the finish line. “You’ve succeeded dummy, the race is over, stop running.” The reproductive and career success drives shut down and the body and mind move into the next phase which is the “care provider“ stage for what has been created.
Even plants go through this cycle. Emerging and producing buds in the spring time, and then developing and sustaining those buds into blossoms in the summer.
Only humans try to prolong their creative “Spring”.
It's fun. :) Even if no-one else gives a poop anymore.
I'd like to think my friends are honest enough to point it out if I fall into something like this. I know my husband is, at least.
About being one of those artists who's never gonna get any better is the way it's more or less physically impossible for my stuff to get any worse. I mean, if it still looks like this after six-and-a-half years of drawing 12 pages of comics a week... :)
Mike