“…. Taste is the enemy of creativeness.” ?

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >As is the nature of one-liners, this quote attributed to Picasso only skims the service. But I like it and see some real value in it. I find that taste and creativity are often at odds even by definition.. as in personal preference vs originality. Please don’t take my taste away, I find it often is a rewarding guide. I am not saying I ignore my taste I just don’t wish to be creatively shackled by my taste.</p>

<p >On a recent philosophy post the name of Leni Riefenstahl was used in a context that she and her work often inspires. But that is another story. <br /> What her work represents for myself is very personal. At the same time I was developing an obsession for photography Riefenstahl was publishing her work The Last of the Nuba, and then People of Kau. I was blown away by her work and found it inspirational. It was my taste at the time. Cool.</p>

<p >I began to dig into her biography and other work. I was naïve and not interested in politics at the time so the political controversy surrounding her past had minimal impact on my opinion. I came across her Olympiad/Triumph film work and her Olympic photos. This work was clearly not to my taste. It was cold, formal, clinical, regimented and I thought lacked the power and nuance and engagement of her tribal work in Africa. But it was memorable, I never forgot it. Even now I can see the style and imagery in my minds eye.</p>

<p >A few years past before I revisited her work. I explored the reasons that her Olympic work was haunting me. I began to discover how effective she had been in her direction and control of what was before her camera. In part, I think it was that very control that was in conflict to my taste. I set aside my taste and began to develop a respect for her ability to master her medium and convey her intent with rigid control. Such power. Once I allowed my taste to take a back seat there was an explosion of new styles and ideas for me to work with. Thanks to Riefenstahl for my discovering many new isms (constructivism, industrialism …yada), which led me to many great photographers and other artists.</p>

<p >Early on, I taught myself a valuable lesson at art school. Pay attention when something implants a little voice in my head. At school I was directly exposed to many different styles and tastes. Many of those differences were not to my taste but they did speak to me and eventually opened doors. When I began to tune in to those whispers I found great rewards. I find I have to often set my taste aside and be less discriminating in what I allow in if I want to pursue ‘the flower unseen’.</p>

<p >just a soapbox observation… on Picassos quote that I find value in. Do you?</p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

<p>I admire Picasso's work greatly but we do know he played among a rich, not necessarily perceptive audience. He said all sorts of things, kept his patrons entertained. His taste in women was easily understandable, not particularly creative :-)</p>

<p>I don't think statements by artists are often meaningful.</p>

<p>Your observations about "little voices" and "set aside my taste" are important.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I admire Picasso's work greatly but we do know he played among a rich, not necessarily perceptive audience.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>? i missed the point.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think statements by artists are often meaningful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i agree .... artists, politicians, carpenters, ..... but sometimes someone says something meaningful, i hope. I'll keep an open mind.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your observations about "little voices" and "set aside my taste" are important.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the stamp of approval. Do you care to elaborate?</p>

<p>I fully agree with the quote, if it is to mean that with art, it's best, more creative and more rewarding, to not only experience a work of art from just one singular viewpoint of personal taste, but to also let yourself be open to be exposed to works of art that not immediately satisfy that taste, but also challenges it. <em>Taste </em>is an opinion and opinions we all have. But this taste that forms our opinions always creates a conflict, it's always a reaction against something or for something, we choose to like one thing and dislike the other thing, and in this state of mind of constant conflicts, we may ask ourselfes, can we really <em>observe</em> anything ?</p>

<p>This being said though, I do believe that the ' living up to the quote ' requires a balancing act, where one has to find the highest possible point to wich the creativeness can peak ( by broadening and letting go of the personal taste ) and stay there in harmony before it all comes falling down with the possibility of being stuck in reverse and to a point where <em>creativeness becomes the enemy of taste</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>...creativeness becomes the enemy of taste</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting reversal and juxtaposition Phylo. Good thoughts. It seems that taken to an extreme a lack of input from your taste could become a case of 'art for arts sake'.</p>

<p>Josh, I meant to point out that Picasso, because of the amount of silly adulation he welcomed as a virtual pop star, might be better seen in his work than attended to in his words :-) </p>

<p>As well, he got plenty of attacks, some of which related to his often-primative sexual themes...perhaps they weren't considered "tasteful" by somebody or other...maybe the taste/creativity quotation you provided was simply a casual, relatively unimportant defense. Can you provide context, a link?</p>

<p>As to our "little voices" (not just yours), they do come from somewhere within us, and perhaps the source knows us better than we imagine.</p>

<p>What if creativity were not the enemy of taste, but the driver of taste. Rather than allowing taste to be the motivator, which is often the case and often why creativity is stifled, perhaps we can see creativity as a molder of taste. Hasn't that often happened throughout history? The true creative genius often precedes by decades the change in taste required of an appreciative audience. Perhaps that change of taste doesn't come quite so naturally. Perhaps it is actually instigated by precisely the guy who's stuff we don't like . . . yet.</p>

<p>Maybe taste is fluid and more than specific. It seems to move in time and is as cultural as it is individual.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, I meant to point out that Picasso, because of the amount of silly adulation he welcomed as a virtual pop star, might be better seen in his work than attended to in his words :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is only the words that hit home for me, not his status as pop star or even a well recognized and compensated artist. I can also pay attention to his work it is not exclusive to admire a few words.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As well, he got plenty of attacks, some of which related to his often-primative sexual themes...perhaps they weren't considered "tasteful" by somebody or other...maybe the taste/creativity quotation you provided was simply a casual, relatively unimportant defense</p>

</blockquote>

<p>interesting theory, but the context you seek is not of concern to my post. I am using words that have meaning for me and giving credit to the author. I am indifferent to the context.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What if creativity were not the enemy of taste, but the driver of taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>solid insight! nurture it. if you practice it long enough it becomes you.<br>

Taste at its best does seem fluid and difficult to pigeonhole. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As to our "little voices" (not just yours), they do come from somewhere within us, and perhaps the source knows us better than we imagine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the source! that is stimulating :) I think that there are times when i am open to allow it through, that it takes hold and it is best to take the backseat to my preconceptions and enjoy the ride. </p>

<p><em>>> creativeness becomes the enemy of taste <<</em></p>

<p>Phylo,</p>

<p>I do agree with this statement... and I think we are living in a world where this statement just applies to a vast part of what is considered "creation" or "art"...</p>

<p>Though I doubt this is only the consequence of >> broadening and letting go of the personal taste << ...</p>

<p>It was certainly the case for quite a number of artists up to the late 60's which sincerly tried to open new roads, new ways of seeing the things and transmitting their emotions.</p>

<p>I'm far more reserved about their apparent followers of more recent times sincerity.</p>

<p>I don't believe you can totally forget any kind of scale of reference to judge a piece of art (or a pîece of something pretending to be art).</p>

<p>Taste is one of these evaluation scales and taste is a word which has more than one signification.</p>

<p>Picasso's quotation can be interpreted at least in two ways as we don't know if the Great Pablo referred to personal taste or the more sociological approach of the term taste : the taste of the era.</p>

<p>Knowing the political background of the artist, I would have probably chosen the second interpretation... Which directly refers to things like <em>le "bon" goût bourgeois</em> (the "good" bourgeois taste) which describes what was admitted and fashionable and acceptable in a rather conservative and traditionalist wealthy class, almost impervious to any innovation.</p>

<p>According to this interpretation, Picasso's sentence is far less hermetic and far more practical. it can be translated in this form : Do not let social conventions and socially acceptable taste(s) limit you creativity... Something which is indeed a necessity when someone wants to become really creative in a personal way, as he (or she) has to impose his (her) personal way.</p>

<p>The other interpretation which the original poster seems to favor seems - alas - the way many self appointed artists (or gallery owners boosted ones) seem to put forward.</p>

<p>Most of these people seem to consider shocking the audience for the sake of shocking it and bad craftsmanship are the prerequisite of "modern" artistry ! ...</p>

<p>Then, they (or their sponsors) try to find a way to give sense enough to what cannot be described otherwise than a scam - generally using a psychological (mostly freudian) language - to convince an audience of would be wealthy, but generally art illiterate, buyers the halphazardly composed meaningless by itself "piece of art" has an hidden (and obviously deep) sense ! ...</p>

<p>And here we see the limit and the danger of the interpretation of Picasso's quotation as something regarding personal taste.</p>

<p>If not for the ability of the indelicate seller to "paint" the so-called artist work as having a deep meaning with a totally hermetic argumentation most the buyers are unable to understand (fortunately for the seller as in fact this argumentation is more than often totally meaningless !), most of the would be buyers, simply using their personal taste and feelings as a guide, will never buy it... Add to this recipe a way to flatter the ego of the would be buyer as a possibility for him (her) to pass as a great connoisseur in Art if he (she) buys and a piece of salt telling him (her) how this purchase will also be a sound investment (this kind of language is this time perfectly understood by the potential buyer, it pertains to his (her) usual world) and you've got it ! ...</p>

<p>This is no more Art but art market, and on the contrary to the 16th century mecenes, the new art amateur is not a connoiseur but at best an investor and at worst an illiterate snob sucker.</p>

<p>With no reference system, either social or personal, the art customer becomes a manipulated puppet of the "artistic mafia" and the artist, provided he (she) is not a consicous accomplice, is likely to never produce something new or valuable. As trespassing the limits of his (her) PERSONAL taste without a sound reason cannot tell anything valuable to the audience and something resisting the assault of time and changing fashions. It is only an encouragement to fake artists and scammers.</p>

<p>I doubt it was ever Picasso's intentions.</p>

<p>FPW</p>

<p>Thank you FPW, sincerely. Had i foreseen that the context of Picassos words would have become an issue i would have headed my post ' does your personal taste become an obstacle to creativity?' I stand admonished. But the intention of the post was clear enough it was not intended as an interpretation of Picassos words..<br /> as for the rest of your post FPW, wow. You are taking some giant leaps. You refer to me as the original poster...?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The other interpretation which the original poster seems to favor seems - alas - the way many self appointed artists (or gallery owners boosted ones) seem to put forward.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and then you seem to lump me together with ....? ( i am not quite sure, but the message seems clear) Again it seems that preconceived notions have taken hold. What there is to learn from that, i just don't know.?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems that taken to an extreme a lack of input from your taste could become a case of 'art for arts sake'.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and I think that's what it always comes down to again and again, but more in a way to not even consider the extreme, to find that middle ground, or better yet, to actually find the impossible solid <em>no ground </em>. In wich the goal may exactly be to have no goal, and at its very best not even that : <em>to not even have the goal ' to have no goal '. </em>Standing in front of a white canvas and just paint, but without giving up to painting<em>.</em> It doesn't make any practical sense, wich it shouldn't, can't, and never will if one too purposefully strives for it to make it practical. A sort of Daoism or <em>T</em>aoism approach. </p>

<p>I do like Fred's proposition of creativeness being the driver of taste. In that way, maybe both driver and 'passenger' can travel ( or hope to aim ) towards a point or destination of common <strong>nature</strong>, to be inspired by its deceptive simplicity. And yet, being human, without closing the eyes to the passing 'unnatural' landscape, constantly being formed and reformed by the social and personal relations that FranA§ois P. Weill seems to talk about.</p>

 

<p>Francois makes a great point about there being more than one interpretation of "taste," personal and cultural.</p>

<p>He then makes a leap. One who uses Picasso's words in personal terms is now classified in the group of "self appointed artists." Francois assumes this group is into shocking for the sake of shock and he also assumes artists who recognize themselves as artists must be bad craftsmen. Throw the baby out with the bath water!? Yes, there are phonies in the art world. And there's gambling in Casablanca. It doesn't mean that everyone who personally questions the stagnating effect their own taste can have on their own creativity is some kind of exploitive-phony-artist-hack.</p>

<p>The "danger" is not interpreting Picasso's quotation as something regarding personal taste. The danger is that the quote might actually pertain to exactly what Francois is doing, and on a very personal level. Allowing experiences with some self appointed artists who are bad craftsman to prejudice your opinion of those who personally discuss their own taste is very similar to what Picasso was warning against even in your own preferred interpretation of him. Because, indeed, it has become completely "conventional" to put down anyone daring to call themselves an artist or creative. It is just so very current to see anyone labeling themselves an artist or a creative person as a fraud. You are allowing that convention to cloud your judgment.</p>

A snippet of afterthought from my last post : Nature doesn't adhere to taste ( in the meaning of 'opinion' ), and while creative, it doesn't adhere

to creativity either. It just is.

Maybe for experiencing and/or making art one should just be, letting go of taste and creativity altogether, because isn't nature the highest

art?

Also, my ' creativeness becomes the enemy of taste ' wasn't a statement, at least not in the strict way of

FPW's use, wich should be clear if one doesn't ignore the words I wrote above it.

<p>"isn't nature the highest art?"</p>

<p>I don't view it that way. Art, to me, has always had a sense of the unnatural, of artifice. I like that art is man made and not necessarily trying to imitate nature. </p>

<p>To "just be" seems fine to me, for those who can do it. Many people making good art think long and hard about what they're doing, consider very carefully their medium, their technique, etc. They then combine that care and craft with creative actions that are much less describable.</p>

<p>Josh,</p>

<p>Please, don't misunderstand my words, there is absolutely no personal attack in my message...</p>

<p>I just underlined the fact your quotation of Picasso which introduced the subject (so you are the intial poster aren't you ?) was IMHO based on a misinterpretation of his words. They have actually a totally direrent meaning when considered as a statement regarding the taste of a society or part of a society and not the one of an individual. I even beleive they have sense only this way ! ...</p>

<p>I have quite well understood the real meaning of your interrogation, which regards the eventual necessity for an individual to forget his own taste to become creative. I have just tried to show how dangerous and misleading such an attitude can (but not necessarily will) allow in the practical world. And I think this consequences are already pervasive in the small world of modern art.</p>

<p>For me an artist cannot but express something to the others, if has nothing to express, then he is not an artist at all. The second prerequisite to be an artist, as I see the things, is to be a master craftsman in your art. And the third is you have to express what you want to express in a deeply personal way (otherwise you're a copyist).</p>

<p>This third prerequisite of course void your interrogation as far as I'm concerned... Individual taste being a fundamental part of the personality.</p>

<p>Even if I don't consider me as an artist, when I take a picture and the result displeases me, I dump this picture... Whatever anybody else can say about it.</p>

<p>There are innumerable histories of famous painters destroying their work because they were not satisfied with it, <strong>hence it was not to their taste</strong> <em>,</em> even when a lot people told them it was a great creation.</p>

<p>In fact I believe a true artist is a totally subjective medium between his subject and the audience. By removing this subjectivity in asking him to forget about his personal taste, such a fundamental component of his personality, you just kill both the artist and the art together.</p>

<p>That's why I think Picasso's words have a totally different sense than the one you understood and are not related to personal taste in anyway, but the weight of the dominant conceptions of the era the artist lives in.</p>

<p>Any human work, including the creation process (in art or in scientific discovery for example) is the result of an interaction between the innate characteristics of the individual which are of genetic origins and the environment (natural, social, political, cultural ... a.s.o.). Nothing is produced <em>in abstracto</em> .</p>

<p>Artists cannot abstract themselves from their own personality, they cannot abdicate their personal bias and tastes. If doing so they'll never produce anything interesting as any sincere work of art is a reflection of this personality.</p>

<p>I have yet to understand by the way how your longer development on Leni Riefenstahl's work versus her nazi past is related to the question you ask...</p>

<p>She was without any doubt a great craftsman in photography and film making. She served a bad cause with a remarkable talent. It will be so easy and comfortable for the mind to think people serving bad causes are always stupid, lacking any talent and producing things just as ugly as the ideas they uphold. Unfortunately, this is not the case. To recognize these people may be talented and real artists is not endrosing in anyway their ideas.</p>

<p>Werner Von Braun was instrumental in allowing the USA to reach the Moon... He was also a nazi and in the sombre tunnel of K.Z. Dora where the V1 and V2 were built died a lot of inmates. As a human being he was a nazi and moreover a war criminal (Leni Riefenstahl was "just" a nazi) but I'm yet to hear from the NASA any declaration about the nazi and war criminal past of Mister Von Braun. This doesn't imply he was not ALSO a great scientist.</p>

<p>But I still miss the link between the personal taste of an artist and his eventual need to forget this personal taste to become creative and <strong>your</strong> perception of Riefenstahl's <strong>work</strong> ???</p>

<p>Can you elaborate on this point please ?</p>

<p>FPW</p>

 

<p>Ahhh, the mystery man returns.<br>

 

<blockquote>

<p >Josh, Please, don't misunderstand my words, there is absolutely no personal attack in my message..</p>

</blockquote>

</p>

<p >.i don't believe i misread the insinuations as you are suggesting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >I have quite well understood the real meaning of your interrogation, which regards the eventual necessity for an individual to forget his own taste to become creative. I have just tried to show how dangerous and misleading such an attitude can (but not necessarily will) allow in the practical world</p>

</blockquote>

<p >as i said in my opening 'Please don’t take my taste away, I find it often is a rewarding guide. I am not saying I ignore my taste I just don’t wish to be creatively shackled by my taste.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p >For me an artist cannot but express something to the others, if has nothing to express, then he is not an artist at all. The second prerequisite to be an artist, as I see the things, is to be a master craftsman in your art. And the third is you have to express what you want to express in a deeply personal way (otherwise you're a copyist).</p>

</blockquote>

<p >we are on the same page here and i would add to the first line for themselves.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >This third prerequisite of course void your interrogation as far as I'm concerned... Individual taste being a fundamental part of the personality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >taste is a fundamental part of the personality, but how does that void my opening?</p>

<blockquote>

<p >I have yet to understand by the way how your longer development on Leni Riefenstahl's work versus her nazi past is related to the question you ask...</p>

</blockquote>

<p >?????</p>

<p >i suggest you reread what i wrote. I am unconcerned about her politics and intentionally make that clear. I only refer to her African tribal work and her olympic images as a matter of taste, and how my taste for her african work early on obscured the other great imagery that was an acquired taste for me.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Allow me to sidetrack. It is the nature of discussions, debates to get sidetracked. It is on these sidetracks that it dawned on me that i could just as easily said do your preconceptions get in the way of your creativity. I think it is safe to say preconceptions often get in the way of learning. Creativity and learning are closely linked in my approach to making photographs.<br /> in hindsight '<strong>does your personal taste become an obstacle to creativity</strong><strong>?</strong>'</p>

<p>Some very stimulating thoughts being tossed around, many warranting further discussion.</p>

<p>"Artists cannot abstract themselves from their own personality, they cannot abdicate their personal bias and tastes. If doing so they'll never produce anything interesting as any sincere work of art is a reflection of this personality."</p>

<p>Actually, much great art is a lie, meant not at all to reflect the artist's personality.</p>

<p>Some artists simply have to create. They don't do it because they like it or because it reflects their taste. My guess is that someone like Mozart probably really hated some of the stuff he had to come up with to keep the Court happy. It is nevertheless great music. He was that good that even though he might not have done some of his work to satisfy himself or his own tastes, he was able to create things that would emotionally move others.</p>

<p>Many documentarians are great artists. I'm sure many of them don't "like" what they're doing and aren't in the least trying to reflect their own personalities. They are covering and presenting stories, many of which, I'm sure, turn their stomachs. I'm sure many of their own photos are completely distasteful to them. Those photos are significant nonetheless.</p>

<p>I'm sometimes not sure whether I like a photo of mine or not. It may be the beginning stage of a new process. I may destroy the photo or I may put it up for view. My putting it up for view doesn't mean it's any more to my taste than were I to destroy it. It may simply mean I want to see where it leads me or I feel compelled to have others react to something I've done, for whatever reason.</p>

<p>"...i could just as easily said do your preconceptions get in the way of your creativity." - Josh D W</p>

<p>You seem to be back-pedaling. The out-of-context Picasso quotation, which you have not yet put in context, was an attempt to add weight to a gossamer-lit notion.</p>

<p>That's the usual reason we use quotations by "big names." We're ripping them off, as was done here.</p>

<p>I doubt Picasso even said those words...first, because I doubt he used English for the idea. Relying on out-of-context English words, we can't know what he meant, if he did indeed say something to that effect in French or Spanish.</p>

<p>When we babble ideas about "creativity," "art," and "taste," we virtually never explain our motivation for using them: Most use those terms to make their products (photos, songs, paintings etc) seem more important, thereby making themselves seem more important.</p>

<p>I don't use the word "art" very often because it most commonly refers to attractive decor. There's nothing wrong with decor...it becomes amusing when we insist that it's "art."</p>

<p>We all know what "taste" means: bourgeois acceptability. That's not always a bad thing...most of us enjoy bourgeois comforts. The American Revolution was driven substantially by bourgeois leaders, such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams.</p>

<p><br /> "Creative" is a word that's owned mostly by people who are referring to some sort of virtue that doesn't have to do with daily survival, making a living etc. I think they're pretty close to the mark. But we should remember that the word is used almost as sloppily as "art," which means it's becoming a filler word and soon will refer to nothing, as "art" nearly does.</p>

<p>Some folks already consider Wii "sports" to be athletic, air-guitar to be music. "Art" and "creative" have long referred to comparably worthwhile silliness. </p>

<p>We say virtually nothing when we label Picasso "creative," or refer to his work as "art." Our best potential entails looking at his work, looking at other work, and discussing it among friends.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, take a break, catch your breath we'll wait while you catch up with the rest of us.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>interesting theory, but the context you seek is not of concern to my post. I am using words that have meaning for me and giving credit to the author. I am indifferent to the context.<br /> in hindsight '<strong>does your personal taste become an obstacle to creativity</strong><strong>?</strong>'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, when you switched gears, dodging my question about the validity of your Picasso quote, you drew attention to the weakness of use of "art" and "creativity." You skated lightly over "taste," while continuing to assert that yours related to some sort of way of seeing and evaluating photographs.</p>

<p>I appreciate that you have learned and changed over time. We don't hear honesty like that very often here because we usually feel constrained to salute concepts we don't hold in any way that we can explain. Most of us say "I'm an artist" but can't say what that means. I'm not an artist, I'm a photographer. Photography's congruence with art has been irrelevant for a long time.</p>

<p>I'd like to see your ideas expressed in terms of photography's values. I think Picasso considered his work above "art" in general, and I'm certain that photography's merits are as well.</p>

<p>It was me that first mentioned the Nuba. I wonder if you appreciate that work as fully as possible, as you reduce it to your own "taste" in an "art" frame of reference. I think its merit as photography transcends "taste" and "art", as does all of the "best" photography.</p>