In my unscientific work with not very successful theatre people, I have tended to work with a 75/25 split of narcissistic asshole/normal person. I found the normal people to be more talented, or at least so much easier to work with that it outweighs the slight increase in talent.
I would insert rant here, if I wasn't leaving work in 4 minutes. Something about insecurity leading to monstrous behaviour. But, in short, I will agree with Sophia, but say that I've often wondered if the crazy/bitchy/normal/nice spectrum of behaviour doesn't affect one's outlook on that person's performance.
My psychiatrist friend has mentioned a definite correlation between creative types and mental illness. But who's to say if the mental illness helps or hinders the creative process.
I have tended to work with a 75/25 split of narcissistic asshole/normal person. I found the normal people to be more talented, or at least so much easier to work with that it outweighs the slight increase in talent.
My experience was 50/25/25 narcissistic asshole/unbalanced or lacking-common-sense genius/normal person. The geniuses could either be jackasses or like unto sweet, dumb puppies that needed to be herded. The assholes may or may not have been talented. But something I noticed, even with the "normal" theater people, was a lot of passion - enough that it was outside the norm of the general populace. However, I was living in a place renowned for the stoicism of the inhabitants. I don't know how much to correct for that.
Hec, how do you define artist?
People who create works which are meritorious.
Meritorious things: well executed, original, thoughtful, insightful.
Non-Meritorious things: hackneyed, cliched, poorly executed, conventional.
So if Michael Bay made original, thoughtful and insightful movies where things blew up he'd be good with me. He'd be like...early James Cameron. The insight would be on the thin side but it would be original and well made.
But people can quibble about any standard you place for art. And I know Nutty will quibble and ita will get out her pom poms and cheer "Be! Be! Be more specific!"
However, I am not particularly interested in a long conversation just to define terms so let me cut to the gist.
You can create art in any medium where you demonstrate mastery of the medium and use it in daring and original ways. If it's unoriginal then it is falling on the spectrum from Really Rather Artistic to Rather a A Lot of Crap.
Being derivative in art is not the worst sin by any means but if you're looking at how to judge a creation, then the more work that goes into creating and less from deriving is a valid standard.
Execution would be (I think) the other axis to consider.
So if the art is extremely original and interesting but poorly executed (like some folk art) then it's still pretty high on our chart. If it's extremely well executed but fairly derivative then it can also be quite artful. But the work which is original and well executed rates the mostly highly.
Those are my standards and I think they're defensible.
Actual- I have to re-agree with Sue and juliana-- I forgot about the sweet dumb puppies....
even with the "normal" theater people, was a lot of passion - enough that it was outside the norm of the general populace.
I know this myself... in the theatre I am quiet, but firm, balanced and practical. In the "wild" I am a loud, emotional flake. And I seem to behave the same way in both places.
I think they're defensible.
And they may very well be, but I don't see the crazy correlation. And to be precise--do you see crazy as a correlation or a cause or an effect?
Meritorious things: well executed, original, thoughtful, insightful.
Mmm. I think this would include newspaper articles, mathematical formulas, judicial opinions -- many crafts that require thought. They do seem to be criteria for "works that I consider good." I bet Bay, whose movies I have to admit I've never seen, doesn't do action sequences without a lot of original thought.
I bet Bay, whose movies I have to admit I've never seen, doesn't do action sequences without a lot of original thought.
I wouldn't rank him with Cameron's work in T:2 or Aliens, or George Miller's work on Mad Max 2 or Spielberg's work in a lot of things. I think of Bay as a quintessential "running away from fireballs" guy.
I think this would include newspaper articles, mathematical formulas, judicial opinions -- many crafts that require thought.
I suppose I could rename my Original/Execution chart as "Quality Standards" but then I have to go and define Art. What does bob bob have to say about the state of Aesthetics?
Bob bob is an aesthetics ignoramus. He's a running away from the fireball of art kind of guy.
(For our anniversary one year he got us a 64-part DVD lecture series on the history of European art. We made it to 20, IIRC.)
Non-Meritorious things: hackneyed, cliched, poorly executed, conventional.
So, any montage with Hallelujah then?
