Decline: 13 years later
Ironywaves
Subject: Re: More on the new album
Newsgroups: rec.music.dylan
Date: 1990-10-02 08:30:52 PST
In article <1990Oct2.1...@cbnews.att.com>, a...@cbnews.att.com
(andrew.j.whitman) writes...
<In article <84...@milton.u.washington.edu>, how...@earth.arc.nasa.gov (John
Howells) writes:
<>
<> This affirms my belief that Dylan is putting out much better work than
<> anyone could reasonably expect. How many artists in their 50s can sustain
<> the level of creativity they once had in their youth? I'm not talking
about
<> skilled craftsmen such as concert pianists or orchestra conductors, but
<> composers, novelists, painters, etc. It's an unreasonable expectation.
<
<Why is it an unreasonable expectation? I've heard this argument advanced
<several times to explain Dylan's deepening maturity/decline (choose one).
<I still don't buy it. I can think of a *lot* of artists who did their
<best work late in their careers - Shakespeare, Beethoven, Eliot, Blake,
<and Tolstoy, for starters. The idea that an artist somehow "uses up"
<his or her storehouse of creativity just doesn't fit the reality of many
<artists' lives. And why should it? In almost every field of endeavor it
<is an unspoken assumption that an individual's knowledge and expertise
<will deepen over time. So are artists somehow exempt from that? I don't
<think Shakespeare and Beethoven would agree.
<
Good point, but let me try this:
I think the difference between Dylan and Shakespeare/Beethoven/etc. is that
Dylan's impact on the world came very early in his career, wheras the
careers of Shakespeare et al followed a slow steady rise in quality until
reaching the pinnacle of mature artistry. I know it isn't all cut and dried
and there are exceptions to everything, but it seems like there are two
distinct types of artists: those who display a burst of early creativity
and those who build on a steady foundation of learning and skill. The
former tend to be very intuitive in their efforts and the latter very
thoughtful and meticulous. Examples of type I are, in addition to Dylan:
Orson Welles (never could match "Citizen Kane"), Arthur Miller (first few
plays were so good that they couldn't be improved on), Tenessee Williams
(ditto), Chuck Berry (revolutionized rock and roll lyrics, but lost touch
somehow), Peter Bogdonavitch (see Orson Welles), [possibly?] David Lynch
(probably yet to peak, but decline is inevitable). Examples of type II:
Samuel Beckett (early writings interesting, later writings even better,
final writings were the culmination of his genius), Anthony Burgess (began
writing very late in life and his later works were clearly better than his
earliest), Beethoven (each symphony was better than the last), etc.
Since Dylan seems to more logically fit the type I artist - early
blossoming, use of instincts, seat-of-the-pants creativity - I would expect
a career decline similar to that of Chuck Berry or Orson Welles. In fact he
has done better than that and is clearly an exception to this narrow view
of artistic types.
P.S. I know this is all very general and will no doubt fall apart under
close strutiny :-)
--
John Howells
how...@earth.arc.nasa.gov
how...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
Then came Time Out Of Mind, "Love And Theft"... and Masked And Anonymous!
Will