how come youth is so important in art? which art is most youth-centric?
doublespeakeasy
stuff would suck.
and you'd think as artists grow older, they would become better since
they've learned so much more about life, absorbed and learned more
about art, reflected on their earlier works...
sometimes it's true but often it's not.
take paul mccartney. when he quit the beatles he was freakin only 28.
and he had changed musical history. as he grew older, you'd think
he'd become better since he learned more about music--even classical
composition--but he only got worse. his last decent album was 'tug of
war'--despite having the worst song of his career--ebony and ivory.
since then, he's had one good song--no more lonely nights--and reat of
his output has totally sucked.
and think of movie directors. arguably, scorsese, welles, truffaut,
and countless others peaked early.
and there's mozart. would mozart have been better at 50 or 60 than he
was at 20? probably not.
are artists just fresher, more revved up, more neuronically charged
and active, hungrier and more enthused in their youth? does the core
essence of art spring forth from sublime ignorance than stuffy
knowledgability?
i dunno. you tell me.
-----
i hear most poets peak early. and rock music, of course. but what
other arts produce best work during youth? which artworks are known
for its great geezers?
Rango
>you'd think as artists grow older, they would become better since
> they've learned so much more about life, absorbed and learned more
> about art, reflected on their earlier works...
It's a matter of hunger. If an artist (all inclusive; as in writer,
musician, painter, etc.) has a hunger to succeed, their output
thrives. That hunger could be literal, as in the need to survive (put
food on the table, get out of an oppresive environment, etc.), or just
the need to accomplish.
Once that need is satiated, the flame of inspiration can begin to dim.
The artist's output can become formulaic, or self-absorbed. Burn-out
can even set in.
It's not necessarily a matter of age (Grandma Moses comes to mind),
but an issue of desire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beatles, Who, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith:
http://www.phrankenbeans.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michael
> doubles...@hotmail.com (doublespeakeasy) wrote in message news:
>
>>you'd think as artists grow older, they would become better since
>>they've learned so much more about life, absorbed and learned more
>>about art, reflected on their earlier works...
You mentioned Mozart. He probably would have just matured and written
different works. I believe late Beethoven is considered good, just
different than this two earlier phases.
Fluid intelligence peaks at 30, but crystallized intelligence keeps
increasing. Math is one field where you supposedly peak early on.
Erdos may be counterexample (?).
michael
Jason
doublespeakeasy
what's fluid intelligence?
doublespeakeasy
> doubles...@hotmail.com (doublespeakeasy) wrote in message news:
> >you'd think as artists grow older, they would become better since
> > they've learned so much more about life, absorbed and learned more
> > about art, reflected on their earlier works...
>
> It's a matter of hunger. If an artist (all inclusive; as in writer,
> musician, painter, etc.) has a hunger to succeed, their output
> thrives. That hunger could be literal, as in the need to survive (put
> food on the table, get out of an oppresive environment, etc.), or just
> the need to accomplish.
>
> Once that need is satiated, the flame of inspiration can begin to dim.
> The artist's output can become formulaic, or self-absorbed. Burn-out
> can even set in.
>
but suppose truffaut hadn't gotten a chance to direct til he was
sixty(god rest his soul). suppose he was still hungry, literally and
artistically. could he still have pulled off a 'jules and jim'?
i think as one grows older, one begins to question the meaning of art.
like brando with his acting or godard with filmmaking. the artist
becomes more aware of the artifice and loses a sense of urgency and
direct connection with art.
Sakuradamon
R.A.G. Seely
news:8a01597a.04080...@posting.google.com:
> Michael <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:<S_tRc.13225$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>> > doubles...@hotmail.com (doublespeakeasy) wrote in message
>> > news:
>> >
>> >>you'd think as artists grow older, they would become better since
>> >>they've learned so much more about life, absorbed and learned more
>> >>about art, reflected on their earlier works...
>>
>> You mentioned Mozart. He probably would have just matured and
>> written different works. I believe late Beethoven is considered
>> good, just different than this two earlier phases.
The tradition that an artist just gets better as his life progresses is
pretty common in music, as in many other arts. Late Mozart and late
Beethoven are often considered the peaks of those composers' achievements.
>> Fluid intelligence peaks at 30, but crystallized intelligence keeps
>> increasing. Math is one field where you supposedly peak early on.
>> Erdos may be counterexample (?).
The cliche in maths is that if you haven't shown greatness by 25 (let's
agree to push that to 30 these days!), you probably haven't any to show.
But great mathematicians often continue to produce great work into later
life. Erdos isn't really an exception, (though I guess he is a counter
example to your hypothesis - one with which I'd disagree). There is one
myth, though, that winners of the Fields Medal (the maths equivalent of the
Nobel prize), who by tradition are always no older than 40, never, after
winning the medal, produce anything to equal the work that won them the
medal in the first place.
> what's fluid intelligence?
The sort displayed after an evening of heavy drinking. Creations that
spring out of "fluid intelligence" often need to be checked again when
sober the next day ...
--
-= rags =-
CYBERFLOYD
<< as he grew older, you'd think
he'd become better since he learned more about music--even classical
composition--but he only got worse. his last decent album was 'tug of
war'--despite having the worst song of his career--ebony and ivory.
since then, he's had one good song--no more lonely nights--and reat of
his output has totally sucked. >>
No More Lonely Nights isn't that good of a song. He's written ones miles better
than that.
McCartney still writes any number of very good songs. They might not seem as
good on solo albums as they did on Beatles albums. Context is important. Macca
solo isn't as good a format as Beatles.
<< are artists just fresher, more revved up, more neuronically charged
and active, hungrier and more enthused in their youth? >>
Yes, The older you get, the harder it is to do anything. Art included. Energy
wanes as your body and brain slowly gives out. One thing that's interesting
about older artists is seeing how well they can maintain their craft and for
how long. McCartney doesn't do badly at all for a 61 year old man. He still
writes and records very respectable music and puts on a better concert than he
did 15 years ago.
SW
"doublespeakeasy" <doubles...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a01597a.04080...@posting.google.com...