Haley Scholar Reading Groups
By Cindy Lyles
In "Late Bloomers," Malcolm Gladwell focuses on the creative processes of contemporary fiction writer Ben Fountain and 19th century painter Cezanne. Gladwell establishes that it took both men a while to develop into the well-known artists they are today. Neither achieved acclaim in their twenties or thirties; their roads to fame were long and slow unlike some creative prodigies, like Orson Wells, Herman Melville, and Mozart whose careers peaked in their early lives.
“Conceptual” creativity and open-ended exploration are the two artistic processes Gladwell hones in on in the article. The former process entails little research but step-by-step execution that unfolds according to a preconceived plan; whereas the latter results from extensive research, as well as trial and error.
Picasso was so opposed to the open-ended process that he admitted, “I can hardly understand the importance given to the word research. In my opinion, to search means nothing in painting. To find is the thing” (301). On the other hand, Fountain and Cezanne both lean toward the research process to create.
How could a conceptual approach have benefited Fountain and Cezanne more? Or, how would open-ended exploration have benefited a prodigy artist like Picasso?
16 comments:
I believe that it would have been equally beneficial for Picasso to employ a more open-ended exploration as it would have been for Fountain and Cezanne. Exploring new ways to inspire creativity is beneficial for all artists and it could have given these artists a new perspective on what they were already doing. Everyone has their preferred method of learning and you should stick with what works best for you. However, exploring new ways to approach learning, even if you do not utilize them, is always a helpful practice so you can learn from your mistakes or discover a new, more useful method.
Sometimes when you do something by trial and error, you may judge something more harshly. For example, Fountain may have judged an original draft more critically and it could have been a great story to begin with. With trial and error, you may not necessarily improve, just change the original piece. The conceptual approach may have focused Fountain and Cezanne better.
Picasso may have gotten a chance to expand or get different perspectives on masterpieces with the open-ended exploration approach. Sometimes inspiration can only take you so far. Maybe a bit of research and additional drafts would have given him more inspiration and more vision.
I agree that either way these artists created their masterpieces along with the time it took to be credited for it was the best way it could have happened. However, if Fountain and Cezanne had worked in a different manner their work may have been credited sooner for the quick fame in return. What matters most is that the diligent work all of the artists put in did not go unnoticed regardless of their methods and styles at the time.
Picasso would have benefited from an open ended approach because research might have allowed him to branch off of abstract paintings. As far as Fountain and Cezanne are concerned, lack of research leaves free flowing ideas and interpretations. If no research is put into an idea, a piece of work can be interpretated however the artist or viewer feels. That's what makes art so unique.
I think it's pretty interesting that eventually, both strategies will usually result in what the artist or writer envisioned as their best creation. The only major difference I can see, is time.
For Fountain and Cezanne, a more structured approached would maybe have allowed them to gain some focus on their projects. At least knowing partially of what they wanted to convey, instead of having to start over and over again. The conceptual approach could have cut down on time wasted.
For Picasso, an open-ended approach may have allowed him to become more creative or see something that a structured, narrow vision approach, wouldn't have allowed him to do so. A combination of both approaches would probably be the most beneficial in combining time and creativity.
I would like to start off by saying, in my opinion, there is no right or wrong answer. It is a personal choice, and not everyone works the same way. But at the same time, I think each could take away some positive things from one another.
I think the conceptual approach could benefit people like Fountain and Cezanna. To begin with, people that use the conceptual approach have a clear goal and they won't stop until they meet it. That to me is inspirational. I think people like Fountain could learn that although it is good to try new things, not setting clear goals can halt creativity. If you are always trying new things, but have no clear goals, what really are you working towards? Goals in my opinion is what keeps us going in life.
But also, I think conceptual artists like Picasso could learn from experimental artists, that trying new things can help create new goals. Being open minded allows you to think about things you would have never even thought twice about. Sometimes life doesn't always go as planned, and you learn things from it. I believe this is no different in art, sometimes our goals aren't accomplished but we learn more about ourselves along the way.
I feel that with conceptual creativity you can, in a sense,"see" the end and you're focused on reaching that specific end. You're not searching. It's possible that Fountain and Cezanne may have gained recognition earlier in their careers if they had used this method. On the other hand, if Picasso had used the exploration method he may have discovered new inspirations or branched off to paint other kinds of art. By searching, he could've evolved his art to possibly something better.
Everyone works in different ways and there are pros and cons to every method. Regardless, these three artists managed to make great works using their respective methods. I think it's best to just find which method works for you and run with it.
Fountain and Cezanne could have benefited from a conceptual approach. This approach mights have given them fame earlier in their career had they established a strong foundation and worked progressively towards their accomplishment. Picasso's painting were unique in style and perhaps had he researched styles of painting he would have conformed his work to look similar to other painters. Because of his situation an open ended approach probably would not have helped his career.
I completely agree with comments above. There are positives and negatives about different methods and approaches. I honestly believe that each atrists works have their own special and unique way about them. Clearly their methods worked for them. Its all about preference and how you work.
Nia Williams
A conceptual approach is beneficial because it allows you to focus on the main idea that you are trying to obtain. It also helps you discover and map out new ways of developing something that you might have had in mind. Researching may also help with organization along the way and time management.
When open-ended exploration is being used one may benefit from this option because they are open-minded about the project with no limitations. Using open-ended exploration allows you to dive into a project or situation without expectation. You continuously work on something until you are happy with the outcome. This option may take a little longer than expected but is definitely a great way to explore your own creativity.
In my experiences as an artist, I love to create off of an inspirtation, or a single glimmer of light flickering deep within my mind. I like to "find" (in the word's of Picasso) the light and make it blaze. I knnow often times though, the inspiration would fade, or the work would be done and I'd have to wait for another flame to develop. a more open-ended exploration would have helped this issue. It would have been beneficial for Picasso for the same reason. Also, for Fountain and Cezanne, devling reseach may have provided a strict path for them to create on, and opened other doors for exploration and creativity.
I don't really know that we could ever know how taking a different approach could have benefitted these artists or if it even would have. Everyone has a process that they develop and become comfortable with. It's possible that these artists did try the other ways of creating, but that they found their niche in either "conceptual" creativity or open-ended exploration. I think open-ended exploration could have allowed Picasso to develop as an artist, but maybe he was content with his work the way it was. A conceptual approach could have benefitted Fountain and Cezanne by allowing them to follow a single process that would ultimately lead to success.
Everyone has their own method of approaching different problems or, in this case, making their art form known. I think that inspirational works of others can contribute to your own style. But, I also think that not one method works for everyone else.
I agree that not everyone can follow just one method to learn something. Not everybody is made the same, and I think learning approaches are unique to that individual alone. I also think that many people should know what works best for them, like these artists and that we can only better from what we can further improve on.
I agree that not everyone can follow just one method to learn something. Not everybody is made the same, and I think learning approaches are unique to that individual alone. I also think that many people should know what works best for them, like these artists and that we can only better from what we can further improve on.
I do believe that it can be difficult for everyone to follow a particular method when learning something new. We all have different ways of learning and strategies that work best for us as individuals. As we become older, we learn what methods work best for us personally, just like the artist mentioned earlier. One will benefit from what he or she knows they can improve on.
Post a Comment