| |
|
As stated in the title, this thread is not just about music, it is only located in the music forum. This topic is open to discussion of any and all art.
Videodrome wrote:
Another thing, worthy of its own thread: In ten years, Fincher has made five pictures. (Not including videos and that BMW stuff.) From 1950 to 1960 Hitchcock made 12 pictures, and that's fairly comprable for many of the golden Hollywood directors, and even those of the French New Wave, though Hitch may have been slightly more prolific than most. So today the best directors are signifigantly less prolific than the greats of 50 years ago - how does that change the way their careers are developed, and how do we assess them differently? Many pictures now are more technically accomplished, but on each one rests a proportionally greater career percentage. If Hitchcock made a picture like Panic Room (and he did - many) then you just figured there'd be another one in nine months. From Fincher, we may have to wait three years. Discuss.
The issue of the prolific artist and the popular perceptions about what a prolific or non-prolific artist's body of work means is obviously something which is changing all of the time - it seems that overall, the demand for prolific artists has diminished greatly, placing greater emphasis on 'event' works of art that arrive every few years, making that work easier to market to casual consumers because it requires less attention and the artist does not need to compete with themselves in the marketplace.
Still, as a result, popular perception of that artist can be hurt greatly by a mis-step that it takes the artist a few years to back up on, facillitating a fickle audience who is unforgiving of mistakes and flights of fancy. I think that working in a marketplace like this allows cynical calculation and conservatism to thrive - many artists become terrified of taking risks or being playful with their art.
On the other hand, prolific artists who allow the public to bear witness to their continuing evolution by constantly creating/releasing new material tend to be put down by the general concensus of the public and the media - one big example that comes to mind for me is Guided By Voices, who put out an average of 5 records per year. Obviously, not all of this material is first rate, and it's not easy to be a dedicated fan (it gets really confusing), much less create new ones. GBV's individual albums and eps tend to be criticized for being relatively minor and lacking in quality control, but I think that a lot of the time it's because most people are missing out on the context, and can't see how things fit into Bob Pollard's ouvre. It's not exactly their fault, but I really don't think it's Pollard's either.
So........how do you relate to prolific artists? Do you favor them? Disrespect them? Is it a question of quality control, or openness? |
|
|
