I tend to agree with your summation.
mando
On Mar 11, 2010, at 9:47 AM, [email protected] wrote:
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
