Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Vote for Comment of the Week

Last week until August. 

Comment #1: a new comment on your post "Video Pick: A New Way to Think About Creativity":
What a beautiful way to think about creativity. Creative work is particularly difficult and trying to the artist largely because the artist is required to put so much of himself into the work. Their art is then judged in a very subjective way by a large audience. If the work is unsatisfactory to the audience there is no one to blame but the artist. In other fields of work, there are many other factors to be blamed in the case of failure. If a student flunks out of school, it is blamed more on the student and their family than the teacher. If a new computer product fails, it is the company that is forced to shoulder the blame, not any of the individuals who developed it. When an artist produces a piece of work that is a wild success, they alone are given all of the praise and they are regarded as a genius by society. This is an expectation that no one can live up to. Take a look at JK Rowling’s success with the Harry Potter books. Now, no matter what she publishes, it will be compared to one of the most successful book series ever. It’s difficult to not fall short when the expectation is so high. I really like Elizabeth Gilbert’s suggestion that genius is not an internal thing that some artists possess, rather it is an external being that every so often decides to grace a human with a brief period of genius. I think this would help all creative people live happier lives, knowing that some aspects of their work are out of their control.
Comment #2: a new comment on your post "One Hundred and Twenty Seconds":
While I do agree broadly with what this author has to say, his list is completely compiled of plays only theater people are going to know, if even that. I think that this desire to have more diversity is a good impulse but I think that it can be misguided. Just wanting to have diversity for diversities sake is counter productive it will just mean that once the craze of being diverse is over none of the plays will stick. No one will feel they are meaningful or important to produce just that they were good to do to save face. This does not mean that there should not be diversity within seasons, people should strive to look for plays that are written from different perspectives because that will tell better stories to a broader audience. Companies should try to include everyone in the dialog that they are putting out into the world. And one would hope that what they are trying to say is broad enough to reach everyone.
Comment #3: a new comment on your post "Visual effects artists aim to create better work e...":
Amen Zoe! Her "zombie walks" remind me much of the runs around Purnell we take when pulling all nighters. Every hour, when the numbers are the same (1:11, 2:22, 3:33, 4:44, 5:55) we take a lap around the 3rd floor of Purnell in order to wake ourselves up. It works every time. I agree that there is absolutely no reason for people who slave so hard over special effects to have to do their work in a bad environment. I can't understand why anyone would treat the people that will most likely make their movie a hit like dirt.
Comment #4: a new comment on your post "Pyrotopia hopes to blaze trail for eastern fire-ar...":
Apparently no one else cares about this, but I'm going to post a follow up comment anyway. Pyrotopia was awesome. There was a variety of fire art, a really funny announcer, and a great overall atmosphere. The thing that impressed me the most was a musical-fire setup some genius designed. There was a square of four big flames on 7 foot...sticks...forgive me, I don't know pyro terms, and the 'player' stood inside the square, and hit pads that resembled the pads on an electric drumset. Each pad corresponded to a flame, and when pressed, the flame would go BOOM and become 8ft tall for a second and make a sweet sound. So the player pounds out a pattern...and then the machine repeated the pattern by itself, kind of like the programmable water fountain at phipps. I thought this was a really creative art piece that mixed fire with electrical looping equipment (again, don't know terms) and seemed pretty musical as well.
Comment #5: a new comment on your post "Artist Payments at Nonprofits, By the Numbers":
This is a wonderful argument. “Art is important”. A lot of most people will agree with that. “I am willing to pay out of my own pocket to support an artist.” Now that list becomes much shorter. I am curious about the patronage of arts. For many years it was the monarchy, the church or both. The state has produced some very substantial art. (19th century Russia being fine example) American artist are more the pay as you go kind of scheme, though we have created many great artist, they are often from poor up bringings. I am bewildered and the dichotomy of art and entertainment in our American society. People will pay cash money to see the pirates lose or Nickelback rock through their Wednesday night set but the true artists in Pittsburgh are indicative of the artist in NYC. “Starving”. I have yet to reach a suitable conclusion to this matter.

No comments: