Variety Pack
There's an interesting discussion a'brew on the BCM forum, entitled
"Variety Pack". Basically, a member of the forum has written in to Eric to tell him to take care not to fall into the trap of "sounding like himself". Eric's response is thoughtful and passionate, but what is interesting to me about this is the underlying question -- what IS the artist striving for, a body of work that is vast and varied, or a body of work that is ultimately honest? (It's difficult to find words that equal for this argument, but the examples to come might level the playing field.) I don't really see a reason to write this on the forum, since this really is an issue directed towards Eric, and the rest of us are merely boisterous spectators in the arena -- our cries and cheers don't really change the outcome of the sport, but it gives us a sense of participation, and thus makes it more exciting for us to watch. Let's face it, whether you agree or disagree, crusade or castigate, you're still judging Eric for what you can bear witness to -- his (unfinished) body of work. But what is really on trial is the sum-total of his artistry, which could also be thought of as the worth of his soul. So you'll pardon me if I focus on the issue as an abstract, and give Eric a break.
Recording artists are a great place to start and get a quick overview -- in a world where you're only as good as your next hit single, pop artists have to make very clear decisions -- stick with what they're good at, or diversify in hopes of greater success. The New Jerseyans seem intent on keeping it real -- like it or not, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen and Bon Jovi sound pretty much exactly the same as they did 20 years ago. Madonna has certainly evolved, but her unique (read: slightly sucky) vocal quality is always the focal point from album to album. Whereas Beck changes so much from album to album that you can love one and hate the next, and find no continuity between them whatsoever -- clearly, Beck has chosen variety. And then there are the artists that have "evolved" enough that one pines for the days when their work had substance -- I don't know about you, but Van Halen, Metallica, the 80's lineup of King Crimson, and pre-electric Bob Dylan immediately spring to my mind. So clearly, there's a wide spectrum of successful (and unsuccessful) approaches an artist can take.
Some people have speculated that an artist quoting his/her work makes them guilty of self-plagarism. But I have to disagree -- I think it takes one's artistry to another level. Shakespeare did it. Sting does it all the time. Jazz musicians do it to themselves and to one another (oh my!). Brahms did it with his signature, and Shostakovich made his entire career out of it. Think of all the great quotes you've heard -- "I have a dream...", "Ask not what your country can do for you...", "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Do we hear these once, whisper softly to ourselves "how brilliant!" and then never speak them again for fear of being repetitious? Certainly not! A good idea bears repeating -- a great moment bears reference. And creating relevance and reference within one's body of work gives an interested audience further insight into the creator's creative soul.
There are certainly great artists that we've seen continue to evolve and develop quite dramatically throughout their careers -- Picasso and Stravinsky are the first to come to mind -- and their body of work is indeed vast and varied. But I doubt very much that Pablo Picasso moved from the blue period to his cubist work because somebody told him he might want to try a different color than blue; I would assume he felt he had probed deeply enough into that part of his soul/style/curiosity, and was compelled to explore something else. And Stravinsky also didn't move through his classical phase and his serial phase for anyone else's enjoyment -- everyone would've probably preferred a steady stream of rehashings of "The Rite of Spring" until he kicked the bucket (fortunately for us, many 20th Century composers have made it their mission to turn Stravinsky's innovation into overworked cliche... thanks guys).
So we come back to the original question -- what IS the artist striving for, a body of work that is vast and varied, or a body of work that is ultimately honest? While it may be possible to achieve both, at some point or another, one's intentions will be called into question. It seems the best answer we can come up with as creators is, "it's up to us as individuals to decide what's important". The audience gets to decide whether they want more of your sameness, something different from you, or whether they've had quite enough (and wish that David Lee Roth was back in the band... oops, sorry). Regardless, at some level a true artist's vision and intention will strive for something beyond what Eric so appropriately referred to as "blunt fingers and clumsy minds".
"Variety Pack". Basically, a member of the forum has written in to Eric to tell him to take care not to fall into the trap of "sounding like himself". Eric's response is thoughtful and passionate, but what is interesting to me about this is the underlying question -- what IS the artist striving for, a body of work that is vast and varied, or a body of work that is ultimately honest? (It's difficult to find words that equal for this argument, but the examples to come might level the playing field.) I don't really see a reason to write this on the forum, since this really is an issue directed towards Eric, and the rest of us are merely boisterous spectators in the arena -- our cries and cheers don't really change the outcome of the sport, but it gives us a sense of participation, and thus makes it more exciting for us to watch. Let's face it, whether you agree or disagree, crusade or castigate, you're still judging Eric for what you can bear witness to -- his (unfinished) body of work. But what is really on trial is the sum-total of his artistry, which could also be thought of as the worth of his soul. So you'll pardon me if I focus on the issue as an abstract, and give Eric a break.
Recording artists are a great place to start and get a quick overview -- in a world where you're only as good as your next hit single, pop artists have to make very clear decisions -- stick with what they're good at, or diversify in hopes of greater success. The New Jerseyans seem intent on keeping it real -- like it or not, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen and Bon Jovi sound pretty much exactly the same as they did 20 years ago. Madonna has certainly evolved, but her unique (read: slightly sucky) vocal quality is always the focal point from album to album. Whereas Beck changes so much from album to album that you can love one and hate the next, and find no continuity between them whatsoever -- clearly, Beck has chosen variety. And then there are the artists that have "evolved" enough that one pines for the days when their work had substance -- I don't know about you, but Van Halen, Metallica, the 80's lineup of King Crimson, and pre-electric Bob Dylan immediately spring to my mind. So clearly, there's a wide spectrum of successful (and unsuccessful) approaches an artist can take.
Some people have speculated that an artist quoting his/her work makes them guilty of self-plagarism. But I have to disagree -- I think it takes one's artistry to another level. Shakespeare did it. Sting does it all the time. Jazz musicians do it to themselves and to one another (oh my!). Brahms did it with his signature, and Shostakovich made his entire career out of it. Think of all the great quotes you've heard -- "I have a dream...", "Ask not what your country can do for you...", "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Do we hear these once, whisper softly to ourselves "how brilliant!" and then never speak them again for fear of being repetitious? Certainly not! A good idea bears repeating -- a great moment bears reference. And creating relevance and reference within one's body of work gives an interested audience further insight into the creator's creative soul.
There are certainly great artists that we've seen continue to evolve and develop quite dramatically throughout their careers -- Picasso and Stravinsky are the first to come to mind -- and their body of work is indeed vast and varied. But I doubt very much that Pablo Picasso moved from the blue period to his cubist work because somebody told him he might want to try a different color than blue; I would assume he felt he had probed deeply enough into that part of his soul/style/curiosity, and was compelled to explore something else. And Stravinsky also didn't move through his classical phase and his serial phase for anyone else's enjoyment -- everyone would've probably preferred a steady stream of rehashings of "The Rite of Spring" until he kicked the bucket (fortunately for us, many 20th Century composers have made it their mission to turn Stravinsky's innovation into overworked cliche... thanks guys).
So we come back to the original question -- what IS the artist striving for, a body of work that is vast and varied, or a body of work that is ultimately honest? While it may be possible to achieve both, at some point or another, one's intentions will be called into question. It seems the best answer we can come up with as creators is, "it's up to us as individuals to decide what's important". The audience gets to decide whether they want more of your sameness, something different from you, or whether they've had quite enough (and wish that David Lee Roth was back in the band... oops, sorry). Regardless, at some level a true artist's vision and intention will strive for something beyond what Eric so appropriately referred to as "blunt fingers and clumsy minds".
2 Comments:
Wow Jim. Very, very well said.
-Kevin G.
I'm impressed Mr. Bonney. I think as an artist it's a bit of mute point. If what you're doing isn't honest it most likey will not be noticed or if it is...the artist will hate it and begin to hate the process...thereby crippling themself in the long run.
Dishonesty will bite you in the ass whether you notice it right away or try to run.
Post a Comment
<< Home