The essence of artistic success
Music, brings this point to my mind. It has been said of music that it is the
most dangerous of all the art forms as it can insight to riot or bring a man
to tears. Music seems to touch everybody in the masses in a similar fashion.
It's musical accessibility that started me thinking and a rock and roll
band and their flawed performance and ingenious talented creativity and appeal
that started me pondering.
So this blog applies to all the arts painting, music , film and even dance. What makes us great , why are some at the top of the game, revered, isolated and singled out as gods of awesome . We live in a sick culture of celebrity but this is not a new cultural phenomen , it has only been heightened by modern media ever since the invention of books, then photographs and radio and television. We now stand on yet another cultural precipice of social networking one can now go viral in a day or a week - where five hundred years ago it could take a lifetime to achieve national fame and international fame would have been reserved for royalty and popes.
I do digress a little but why are some artists considered above the norm and achieve a certain fame and respect and command admiration from the masses. First question is do they deserve it? Never mind how much easier it is to achieve recognition these days - what makes some artist great? People have written of the cultural and social outcasts that being so freakish and nonconformist they have a unique perspective in reality and consider themselves separate and outsiders. I agree this is possible but coming from my own experience I don't feel this is the driving force for most artists we all have friends and can find like minded people to fit in with. Loners or outsiders with strong sexual dysfunction , alcoholism, drug problems and or natural insanity set themselves apart from the masses but also help the masses identify with them as individuals- projecting their milder social ticks to the extremes of the artists that lead. Are we not all afflicted with some problems on some spectrum or at least that we can empathise with?
There are in the music world many talented and competent musicians for example yet these never achieve the recognition their talent should afford them. I liken it to the hundreds of thousands of university graduates every year, competent but in reality it a seething sea of mediocrity and like in the musical world we need to step away from competency and into the realm of irritating to be noticed . What happens when you listen to perfection all the time one less perfect will stand out - now I am not talking about rubbish, less perfect is almost perfect just slightly off centre in some aspect.
What does this mean ? Well humans have the ability to step out side problems and not just robotically do tasks they can find better ways and make things easier for ourselves. Of course if one smart person invents a wheelbarrow we all benefit in time. It is the inventor I am concerned with and their process, reasons and motivations. When we get back to musicians we find similar innovation but on a macro level. Take for example classical pianists all highly educated and well practised all trying to win a prize in a prestigious event. None of the ten participants make a mistake in their performance. What sets them apart they all played the same piece from the same script . There are a number of factors and all pivot on the judging. This is a huge point are the judges pianist of the same standard or are they the general public who are diverse yet interested enough to watch on tv or streamed online and have voted. One might say that the pianist that played the piece most accurately to the manuscript is the winner. This is subjective to the person who thinks they know what perfection is in this instance and the classically trained pianist judge may believe they actually know but they don't and cannot possibly know this perfection but compared to the general and diverse spectrum of public viewers voting they surly are superior on this point. What if one of the contestants was a computer an the judges could only listen
Should the computer win?
Empathy and identification with failure or flaws makes good art. Perfection is attainable only through control of these flaws. Photography is perfection at the click of a button but that does not make it art yet some people ; photographers and non photographers alike deeply misunderstand this. The computer playing the classical piece should be the best but that is wholly down to the composers ability to write on the staves and have feeling and emotion instilled in black and white and have it translated into notes quarted halfed sixteenth and rested. I am sure as all performers change and adapt pieces in various interpretations the manuscript of a piece becomes obsolete to the composers performance through familiarity and we must not forget or underestimate this factor in realising perfection.
So communication is important - take my pianist competition . The original composer communicated a manuscript and this must be interpreted and performed again there is little or no room for compromise. Yet I firmly believe one needs restriction to breed innovation like the struggling labourer and his menial task spurring on the invention of a wheelbarrow. The musician must play the piece but must solve the problem of interpretation a rather lifeless computer program of a manuscript.
The deepblue computer chess games against Kasparov come to mind at first the computer won but humanity adapts and steps out side the problem looks at the limitation or boundaries of the problem - the computer cannot think creativity cannot lie and trick it only has the knowledge of previously played games and the rules. Chess is a perfect example of a fixed gridded system with a limited starting number of variables rather exponentially becoming unfathomable diverse. There are many possible games but all are chess and have a collective experience that is definable. The classical piece is like this although infinitely more subtle. The artist interpretation is the only thing that sets the ten perfect performances apart and the variation from the judges archetypical performance of this piece the deciding factor. This becomes a lot more interesting when the general public judges. They are not experts in music but are in human experience and the piece was originally written for public performance - usually.
So society and culture can be divided, class influences taste. Monetary conditions influence our purchases of products but not our taste. It is the artist that steps out side the problems and confines of our reality just to see them for what they are and how people perceive , dream and feel ; we experience reality that is similar for everyone in a human body but the actual external reality is varied. Communication and understanding how an artist medium is received or how it is confine or expanded with in the internal and external realities is an art form in itself.
So back to music - the element of fun and lack of disapproval is not achieved before competence is arrived at, but at some point some artists through the understanding of their predicament brake through the sound barrier like an experimental jet and get over the fear of braking up and failure , they survive to become more human and even super human or legend in the minds of some. We all fear failure and being competent at music is playing safe but pushing beyond this norm will make you vulnerable to criticism but also make others identify with that vulnerability in a very subtle way. I am talking of unconscious differences noticed but consciously and artistically controlled . This often is firstly met with disapproval in the art world , your parents don t like your music and peers and critiques alike may hate new artistic movements. Art is sometimes seeing the beauty in the failure or flaws. Photographers and cliques of academics may disapprove of new uses of the camera and processes or tell you that your technique is poor, but it is the artist that understands the limit of the clique and the receptiveness of the masses that will step out of time and see their true direction or vector . Being receptive of the subtle net of reality and how we are connected and our struggles , failures and triumphs ; and how these influence emotions and drive all of us to greatness or the love and admiration of greatness. The really great artist is not a fraud but also are not the best in their field technically; they are talented but flawed but it's a subtle connection or relatability to their audience that gives them mass appeal. This must be a conscious element of their creativity. Control of flaws and imperfections is the key whether one wants a classical sculpture of perfection or a tentative musical composition like Beethoven rediscovering his ability to feel music after his deafness. Conscious control of these elements are essential.
So this blog applies to all the arts painting, music , film and even dance. What makes us great , why are some at the top of the game, revered, isolated and singled out as gods of awesome . We live in a sick culture of celebrity but this is not a new cultural phenomen , it has only been heightened by modern media ever since the invention of books, then photographs and radio and television. We now stand on yet another cultural precipice of social networking one can now go viral in a day or a week - where five hundred years ago it could take a lifetime to achieve national fame and international fame would have been reserved for royalty and popes.
I do digress a little but why are some artists considered above the norm and achieve a certain fame and respect and command admiration from the masses. First question is do they deserve it? Never mind how much easier it is to achieve recognition these days - what makes some artist great? People have written of the cultural and social outcasts that being so freakish and nonconformist they have a unique perspective in reality and consider themselves separate and outsiders. I agree this is possible but coming from my own experience I don't feel this is the driving force for most artists we all have friends and can find like minded people to fit in with. Loners or outsiders with strong sexual dysfunction , alcoholism, drug problems and or natural insanity set themselves apart from the masses but also help the masses identify with them as individuals- projecting their milder social ticks to the extremes of the artists that lead. Are we not all afflicted with some problems on some spectrum or at least that we can empathise with?
There are in the music world many talented and competent musicians for example yet these never achieve the recognition their talent should afford them. I liken it to the hundreds of thousands of university graduates every year, competent but in reality it a seething sea of mediocrity and like in the musical world we need to step away from competency and into the realm of irritating to be noticed . What happens when you listen to perfection all the time one less perfect will stand out - now I am not talking about rubbish, less perfect is almost perfect just slightly off centre in some aspect.
What does this mean ? Well humans have the ability to step out side problems and not just robotically do tasks they can find better ways and make things easier for ourselves. Of course if one smart person invents a wheelbarrow we all benefit in time. It is the inventor I am concerned with and their process, reasons and motivations. When we get back to musicians we find similar innovation but on a macro level. Take for example classical pianists all highly educated and well practised all trying to win a prize in a prestigious event. None of the ten participants make a mistake in their performance. What sets them apart they all played the same piece from the same script . There are a number of factors and all pivot on the judging. This is a huge point are the judges pianist of the same standard or are they the general public who are diverse yet interested enough to watch on tv or streamed online and have voted. One might say that the pianist that played the piece most accurately to the manuscript is the winner. This is subjective to the person who thinks they know what perfection is in this instance and the classically trained pianist judge may believe they actually know but they don't and cannot possibly know this perfection but compared to the general and diverse spectrum of public viewers voting they surly are superior on this point. What if one of the contestants was a computer an the judges could only listen
Should the computer win?
Empathy and identification with failure or flaws makes good art. Perfection is attainable only through control of these flaws. Photography is perfection at the click of a button but that does not make it art yet some people ; photographers and non photographers alike deeply misunderstand this. The computer playing the classical piece should be the best but that is wholly down to the composers ability to write on the staves and have feeling and emotion instilled in black and white and have it translated into notes quarted halfed sixteenth and rested. I am sure as all performers change and adapt pieces in various interpretations the manuscript of a piece becomes obsolete to the composers performance through familiarity and we must not forget or underestimate this factor in realising perfection.
So communication is important - take my pianist competition . The original composer communicated a manuscript and this must be interpreted and performed again there is little or no room for compromise. Yet I firmly believe one needs restriction to breed innovation like the struggling labourer and his menial task spurring on the invention of a wheelbarrow. The musician must play the piece but must solve the problem of interpretation a rather lifeless computer program of a manuscript.
The deepblue computer chess games against Kasparov come to mind at first the computer won but humanity adapts and steps out side the problem looks at the limitation or boundaries of the problem - the computer cannot think creativity cannot lie and trick it only has the knowledge of previously played games and the rules. Chess is a perfect example of a fixed gridded system with a limited starting number of variables rather exponentially becoming unfathomable diverse. There are many possible games but all are chess and have a collective experience that is definable. The classical piece is like this although infinitely more subtle. The artist interpretation is the only thing that sets the ten perfect performances apart and the variation from the judges archetypical performance of this piece the deciding factor. This becomes a lot more interesting when the general public judges. They are not experts in music but are in human experience and the piece was originally written for public performance - usually.
So society and culture can be divided, class influences taste. Monetary conditions influence our purchases of products but not our taste. It is the artist that steps out side the problems and confines of our reality just to see them for what they are and how people perceive , dream and feel ; we experience reality that is similar for everyone in a human body but the actual external reality is varied. Communication and understanding how an artist medium is received or how it is confine or expanded with in the internal and external realities is an art form in itself.
So back to music - the element of fun and lack of disapproval is not achieved before competence is arrived at, but at some point some artists through the understanding of their predicament brake through the sound barrier like an experimental jet and get over the fear of braking up and failure , they survive to become more human and even super human or legend in the minds of some. We all fear failure and being competent at music is playing safe but pushing beyond this norm will make you vulnerable to criticism but also make others identify with that vulnerability in a very subtle way. I am talking of unconscious differences noticed but consciously and artistically controlled . This often is firstly met with disapproval in the art world , your parents don t like your music and peers and critiques alike may hate new artistic movements. Art is sometimes seeing the beauty in the failure or flaws. Photographers and cliques of academics may disapprove of new uses of the camera and processes or tell you that your technique is poor, but it is the artist that understands the limit of the clique and the receptiveness of the masses that will step out of time and see their true direction or vector . Being receptive of the subtle net of reality and how we are connected and our struggles , failures and triumphs ; and how these influence emotions and drive all of us to greatness or the love and admiration of greatness. The really great artist is not a fraud but also are not the best in their field technically; they are talented but flawed but it's a subtle connection or relatability to their audience that gives them mass appeal. This must be a conscious element of their creativity. Control of flaws and imperfections is the key whether one wants a classical sculpture of perfection or a tentative musical composition like Beethoven rediscovering his ability to feel music after his deafness. Conscious control of these elements are essential.
Comments