Article by D Pink in Wired (14.07) on the economist
David W. Galenson: "By examining the careers not only of great painters but also of important sculptors, poets, novelists, and movie directors, Old Masters and Young Geniuses offers a profound new understanding of artistic creativity."
Interesting topic - at least as long as you keep it "tabloid" with "there are two types", rather than what it says inside the article;
"In his later papers, as well as in the book he published this year, he has refined his theory to make it less binary. He now talks of a continuum Â? with extreme conceptual innovators at one end, extreme experimental innovators at the other, and moderates in the middle."
apparentlyy Malcom Gladwell (of Tipping Point and Blink, the last of which I'mcurrentlyl almost done with) also wrote an article but had it rejected by the New Yorker. There is an pdf link at Galesons site, 24 pages.
But, back to the subject: is it true that some people find their "way" early, while others need time to find their inner genius? Or is it simply that we appreciate different things from (in/by) various creators - be they artists, authors or poets? Maybe we enjoy Cezanne because he doesn't try to give answers, while we celebrate Picasso (too much, some argue) for having to go beyond the norm to findchallengee and a separate voice?
What would you rather do? Find the formearlyy, then spend the rest of your days in "decline" (or dead... only the good die young) - or spend years and years refining, learning, exploring - until finally one day you had the golden touch?
