Creative Steps

Why is some art considered better than others?

Why is some art considered better than others and what does this evaluation do to our own creative output?

I recently read an article which argued that classical music was better than other types of music. Here is the author’s point of view:

“I disagree with the notion that popular music is on par with classical, that it’s all just a matter of personal preference. Embedded in that mindset is hostility to the idea that discriminating judgments can be made in art, that hierarchies of value exist, or, indeed, that there is such a thing as objective truth.”

How to Enjoy “The Quintessence of Life”.

Is the author right? Is some art better than others? When it comes to creative output is there such a thing as ‘Objective Truth’?

Whilst I do not doubt that ‘discriminating judgments can be made in art’ I believe the notion of objective truth in art to be meaningless. Art cannot exist independently to human thought or feelings – without an emotional connection there is no art.

Furthermore, because ‘better’ is a relative term we surely need a criteria for comparison – better at what? If we were in the business of evaluating art then these are some criteria that we might use:

• ‘artist’s expression’;
• ‘artist’s technique’;
• ‘elicited emotional response’;
• ‘immunity to the test of time’;
• ‘investment potential’;
  
• ‘originality’.

There are many others and I am sure your own list would be more to your liking.

When it comes to the creative arts we all have a view on the ‘quality’ question and often it boils down to the following:

“I like what I like.  If you don’t like what I like because it seems somehow ‘low brow’ then you are either a snob or else you just don’t ‘get it’. If you don’t like what I like because it seems too ‘high brow’ then you are a moron.”

We can jazz this argument up with all sorts of justification but this is essentially it.

This type of thinking is dangerous as it can stop us being creative and prevent us becoming artists. We just become critics.

Why is this argument so common? Consider these two points:

1) We are trained to be critics – all through our education we are taught to evaluate, compare and contrast. We might need to unlearn this if we are to get anywhere interesting creatively.

2) We are programmed to belong and the best way to belong to one group is to collectively point at another (we like this and not that).

The seductive thing about the quality argument is that at the extremes it is obviously true: by most normal measures Shostakovich would be considered better than The Smurfs. But what about Gershwin, Duke Ellington, John Coltrane (add your own favourite here……)?

When the difference in quality is not clear cut we enter a debate and the discriminating judgments are more probably formed by subjective taste than objective truth.

Life is not that black and white, the joy comes in the spectrum of colours between the extremes.

I happen to get a stronger emotional response to some 80s pop than I do to some classical music and I doubt that Franck or Rachmaninoff could have communicated to me, or the average British teenager, quite as effectively as Robert Smith or Morrisey did at that time. This says nothing about the quality of the music, of course, but, against this one criterion at least, ‘popular music is on par with classical’

I suspect many people can relate to my emotional attachment to pop; as Noel Coward said, ‘extraordinary how potent cheap music is.’

Of course, if we have these emotional anchors to art we are perhaps less able to make ‘discriminating judgements’ about the quality of the art. We integrate the work into our world and it doesn’t become the focus, but a condiment. In the case of music, it becomes the soundtrack to the life we are living.

The context is important.

We would almost certainly have a different opinion of the quality of Rothko’s work if we were to sit quietly in the Rothko Chapel knowing something about the artist’s intentions than if we simply walked by a print of his work hanging on an accountant’s office wall.

‘Would you know world class if you saw it?’

The context is important and we perhaps need to know how to experience art if we are to fully appreciate it (and evaluate it, if we so desire). This is where the post I am referring to strikes a chord. It encourages us to learn how to appreciate this fine music – even providing links. In the author’s words:

“Fortunately, appreciating classical music is a skill that can be cultivated. By learning something about composition, we can more thoroughly understand and enjoy great music. All it requires is your attention, some imagination and a bit of abstract thinking.”

But beware: this is a lesson in becoming a critic, not in becoming an artist. Fine, if that is what you want, just be clear on your goals.

If you are not an artist then what are you? Take the quiz to find out what holds you back?

Posted in Goals, Increasing Creativity, coaching concepts | No Comments »

Can you learn how to do something by studying what other people have done?

Surely the answer to this question is yes. How else do we learn; from trial and error and always starting at first principals? This is just not possible; we are always building on what has gone before. As American Astronomer and Writer Dr. Carl Sagan points out “If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.”

So how do we learn from other people? If I wanted to write songs like Bob Dylan should I learn my craft by studying his albums, which is precisely what so many people try and do?

Hear what Bob Dylan, himself, says:

“No, no, no. It is only natural to pattern yourself after someone. If I wanted to be a painter, I might think about trying to be like Van Gogh, or if I was an actor, act like Laurence Olivier. If I was an architect, there’s Frank Gehry. But you can’t just copy someone. If you like someone’s work, the important thing is to be exposed to everything that person has been exposed to. Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years. I go back to Stephen Foster.”

(taken from an Interview with Robert Hilburn in The LA Times, April 2004).

Learning from others is sometimes called modelling behaviour. It is described as the “process of discerning the relevant states, behaviours and their sequencing and the thinking that enable someone to accomplish a task or to be a certain way.”

The key point is that we can’t just focus on output; we need to understand process – for Bob Dylan this included the things that a person has been exposed to.

In understanding another’s process it might be necessary to understand all aspects of their approach, for example:

• their behaviours and the environments in which they work;
• their capabilities;
• their values;
• their beliefs;
• and their sense of self.

The art of modelling is to know what the key pieces are – the difference that makes the difference.

What else does that interview teach us about Bob Dylan’s process?

There is certainly something in it about his sense of self and beliefs. Take this excerpt:

“I always admired true artists who were dedicated, so I learned from them. Popular culture usually comes to an end very quickly. It gets thrown into a grave. I wanted to do something that stood alongside Rembrandt’s paintings.”

Similarly, here, he talks about the spiritual dimension.

“It is like a ghost is writing a song like that. It gives you the song and it goes away, it goes away. You don’t know what it means. Except the ghost picked me to write the song.”

In the interview Dylan also talks about noticing the creative stimulation in the everyday. How he learnt to Pay Attention

“Chuck Berry wrote amazing songs that spun words together in a remarkably complex way. Buddy Holly’s songs were much more simplified, but what I got out of Buddy was that you can take influences from anywhere. Like his ‘That’ll Be the Day.’ I read somewhere that it was a line he heard in a movie, and I started realizing you can take things from everyday life that you hear people say. That I still find true. You can go anywhere in daily life and have your ears open and hear something, either something someone says to you or something you hear across the room. If it has resonance, you can use it in a song.”

Finally, we learn that Bob Dylan is not afraid to ‘Stand on the Shoulders of Giants’:

“Well you have to understand that I’m not a melodist. My songs are either based on old Protestant hymns or Carter Family songs or variations of the blues form. What happens is, I’ll take a song and simply start playing it in my head. That’s the way I meditate.”

“I wrote ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ in 10 minutes, just put words to an old spiritual, probably something I learned from Carter Family records. That’s the folk music tradition – you use what has been handed down. ‘The Times They Are A-Changing’ is probably from an old Scottish folk Song.”

When asked about ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’ he says, “It’s from Chuck Berry, a bit of ‘Too Much Monkey Business” and some of the scat songs of the ‘40s’“

Creative Steps is dedicated to helping people become more creative and more fully self-expressed. It is your online creativity coach, mentor and guide; a single practical resource to help you take your creative project from concept to completion.

Creative Steps combines a course in creativity with online coaching. It is intended to instruct, inspire and motivate. It is designed to provide you with the tools you need to coach yourself on your creative journey.

One of our rules of the road is about learning from others:

Rule 8: You can improve your own performance by learning how others achieve.

Learn the other rules of the road for your Creative Journey here.

Posted in Case Studies, Creative Steps Coaching Course, Increasing Creativity, Module 3, Module 5 | 1 Comment »