Journal entry for October 7, 2001

Today's summary: About artists changing style and media.

One of my artist friends asked whether it's "bad" if an artist is continually changing style and media, pointing out that that could be seen as a sign of inconsistency or a lack of dedication. Also asked "Is an unchanging style the death of creativity?". So, I responded...

Sometimes "style" and the incessant continuation of a particular style just makes it look like the artist is trying to paint for the market. But, I think being an artist is all about development, change, your work evolving. Question is, how much change works for you?

I do think there's a difference between these two approaches, though:

Approach #1: Becoming committed to a theme or an approach, exploring it thoroughly, to what you would consider an appropriate conclusion/perfection (with what people would probably call your "style" for that theme)... and then eventually becoming interested in some new theme, and gradually moving on to that, and expressing it in a new way. I don't see that kind of "style" as the death of creativity, at all. It's more of an evolving in-depth study, a slow natural development.

Approach #2: Instead of focusing on a particular media or approach in order to perfect it (insofar as that's ever possible), some artists take a fairly random approach: jumping from media to media, a wild variety of subject matter, etc. From one work to the next there may be no cohesive trait, no common mark of the artist's self.

While I'm hesitant to claim that #1 is universally better than #2... at least in my mind, #2 seems much less focused and consequently, less directed. If it were me... That kind of lack of style is still artistic creation, but it would feel too random to me, perhaps too random for me to give myself the opportunity to fully express whatever I'm trying to express.

I still agree that sticking -perpetually- with some style once you get a group of collectors, even if you'd prefer to move on, is certainly going to impact your creativity in a bad way... because you're forcing yourself to do something that isn't what you want to do most.

I know galleries prefer artists who stay consistently with one style of work forever. Even so... gallery considerations aside... I can see why people (random people, not just galleries) see that approach #2 above as a sign that you're less dedicated, that you're just puttering around. I'm not saying it's true in all cases. I'm just saying, I think that's why people see it that way.

An artist once told me (or did I read it somewhere?) that any artist truly dedicated to themselves creatively is bound to lose some of their former collectors... but they'll also get new ones, and after you become established, it becomes easier to be confident about your ability to succeed from Ground Zero when you start with something radically different.

I bet that for many artists though, it's difficult to be brave enough (so to speak) to abandon what feels successful, so you can do something more inspiring.

In response to someone complaining that doing the same thing over and over again kills creativity, I would respond: I think you might be operating with a much broader definition of "the same thing" than many people do. To use an analogy, athletes technically do the same thing over and over... but it's different every time, a different struggle, different challenges. Even if the end goal is always the same. And, it's the athletes who really focus on a particular sport who eventually excel (both in skill and in $$$!). Sure, there are a few who can play multiple sports well, but... well... I think I'm stretching this analogy a bit too much, so I'll just stop here!