It's not obvious to me why "knowing" a number of "arts" would hurt a creator (except, perhaps, by spreading his time too thin). I can't cite anything I've learned about other genres that I'm aware has hurt my progress in my genre.
But has it helped? At this point I need, in passing, to assert that alleged genres do not have mind-independent hard perimeters -- "This is the painter's turf, this is the dancer's turf..." For example, would you call acting an "art"? And would you call playwrighting another "art"? But there's reason to believe that having been an actor helps a playwright at work. Would you call sculpture a different "art" from painting? From my distance, it would seem that some of the skills acquire in one of those pursuits might then be helpful in the other pursuit. (Just to reconcile this posting with some things I've said in the past, I point out that I avoid asking "IS sculpture a different 'art' from painting?" Or, "IS poetry a different art from playwriting?" Philosophers constantly astound me with the basically stupid questions they tend to ask themselves.) Broadly speaking, I have doubts that painters and playwrights could acquire SKILLS from each other's pursuit, but I think they pick up attitudinal stuff, perhaps a readiness to be more experimental, or a comfort in observing that one is not alone with certain experiences -- e.g. the other day Kate told how she had to change a certain portion of a work because, good in itself though it was, it in effect distracted from the intended whole-work effect. To playwrights, novelists and even poets, this is a very recognizable moment. In sum, first thought whispers that someone who "knows" all the "arts" is marginally more likely to be better at his work than the creator confined to one. But the evidence of history gives little support to this idea. Most of the multi-"art" guys tend to be at least a notch below the greatest creators. And many great creators have seemed to confine all their effort and attention to one "art". In a message dated 3/10/10 2:36:48 PM, [email protected] writes: > Actually, with your clarification, i'm comparing the lifetime a,e, > skills of one > individual with the normal related knowledge of one of the arts, to > the a,e, > lifetime skills of another individual with the normal related > knowledge in all > the arts. The question i'm proposing, or trying to reason is,which > group of > individuals might, potentially produce the best & unique a,e, quality > work? > mando
