------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------  
Published by EH.NET (May 2006)  
  
David W. Galenson, _Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life   
Cycles of Artistic Creativity_. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University   
Press, 2006. xv + 233 pp. $30 (cloth), ISBN: 0-691-12109-5.  
  
Reviewed for EH.NET by Robert B. Ekelund, Jr., Department of   
Economics, Auburn University.  
  
  
David Galenson has repeated the hypothesis he examined in _Painting   
Outside the Lines: Patterns of Creativity in Modern Art_ (2001) --   
that some great artists did path-breaking work at early ages while   
others created seminal art only later in life. This time, however,   
sculptors, poets, novelists and movie directors are said to be   
included in these two cohorts.  
  
At base, Galenson believes that he has found a "new understanding of   
the life cycle of human creativity." The basis of this new   
understanding is set out in Chapter 1 of his book. Again, as in   
virtually all of his previous and contemporaneous work, Galenson   
bifurcates art and other creative endeavors into two types -- the   
"experimental" and the "conceptual." According to the author,   
experimental innovators "repeat themselves, painting the same subject   
many times, and gradually changing its treatment in an experimental   
process of trial and error." The epitome in the world of art,   
according to Galenson, is Paul Cezanne. In contrast, the conceptual   
artist makes "innovations motivated by the desire to communicate   
specific ideas or emotions," with goals stated precisely before an   
image or "process" is produced. After this, their role is essentially   
finished. Lots of advance planning goes into this esthetic and Pablo   
Picasso is offered up as an exemplar of this type of artist. Galenson   
then argues that experimentalists produce their "most important   
ideas" late in their careers, while conceptual artists get to the   
same point much younger in their careers.  
  
In Chapter 2, Galenson presents what he calls "evidence" for the   
above proposition(s). He examines auction prices and age-price   
profiles, textbook illustrations, museum collections and   
retrospective exhibitions for Cezanne and Picasso. Galenson then   
maintains (with good reason) that a binary division of the theory   
above will not do because there are "continuous" variations in art   
practitioners -- "extreme and moderate." With admittedly interesting   
and carefully selected anecdotes, the author further amends his   
initial proposition. Now, Galenson conjectures, "it might be   
hypothesized that _extreme_ conceptual artists will tend to achieve   
their major contributions earlier in their careers than any other   
type of innovator" (p. 55, emphasis added) and, further, that "it may   
be possible for conceptual artists to evolve gradually into   
experimental ones, [but that] it is not likely that experimental   
artists can change into conceptual ones" (p. 60). There are, as   
Galenson tacitly admits, many exceptions to his theory.  
  
Chapters 4 and 5 tackle, respectively, the implications of his theory   
(or theories) and its application to Old Master works. The   
globalization of modern art is caused, he argues, by the increasing   
dominance of conceptual art in the post-World War II era. The era of   
"isms" and experimental art was a product of the increasingly   
abstract art developing in Europe and America in the era of Abstract   
Expressionism and European modernism. The author concludes that "the   
dominance of conceptual approaches to fine art in the recent past has   
clearly served to accelerate the spread of new artistic ideas" (p.   
93). Old Master painters, however, do not escape Galenson's   
attention. Here he purports to show (given reproductions of their   
works in textbooks on art history to show "peak value") that in three   
out of the ten of the most reproduced paintings the artists were   
"conceptual" and were below 30 years of age (one, Vermeer, was 29).   
For the remainder, alleged to be "experimental," however, only three   
were 46 or over and three were in their thirties. One artist, Frans   
Hals, skews the data with age given at 79/84. The issues are "How old   
is old" and how can a sample of 9 artists tell us anything about the   
distinction Galenson is attempting to draw?  
  
Chapter 6, the unique part of the book, pushes the distinction   
between conceptual and experimental innovators into other realms.   
Using highly selected individuals, quotations and interpretations,   
Galenson examines seven sculptors and eight poets, authors and film   
directors. Consider some of Galenson's observations. With respect to   
writers: "Conceptual writers are more likely to base their works on   
library research and to strive for precise factual accuracy, whereas   
experimental writers typically rely on their own perceptions and   
intuition" (p. 134). Conceptual film directors, using the same logic,   
"often avoid linear narrative and conventional story lines" (p. 150),   
while experimental directors stress the importance of telling a story   
with a clear narrative. Distinctions such as these are so fuzzy and   
the samples used to produce credence for them so small that almost   
any close and selected biographical synopsis could produce any   
desired result.  
  
Galenson reveals a certain depth of erudition and research in all   
this. Unfortunately there is no theoretical or empirical foundation   
to the main argument. There is no clearly demonstrable distinction   
between conceptual and experimental thought _processes_ in art, music   
or any other kind of creative activity. Cherry-picked quotations and   
exhibitions aside, Galenson has not clarified the argument that   
creative thinkers can be dichotomized into seekers and finders.   
Anyone who has known a working artist (or poet) would recognize that   
these two processes are not divisible and, indeed, are often   
inextricably intertwined _within_ the same work.  
  
Measurement, if one can call it that, consists of anecdotes that   
Galenson selected to support the dichotomy. For example, age   
distributions of artists clearly matter if one is to use ex post   
rationalizing of peak valued work. Some artists die young, others do   
not. Most Old Masters had far more limited life spans, making peak   
value productivity a logical impossibility at older ages. Highly   
selected samples of artistic works do not help his argument either.   
There are many "great film" lists. Virtually all put _The Godfather_   
and _Raging Bull_ on or near the top of the list. But Francis Ford   
Coppola and Martin Scorcese, clearly _experimental_ directors in   
Galenson's scenario, were only 33 and 38 at their executions.   
Consider another example. Was W. A. Mozart "conceptual" or   
"experimental" and would he have produced "peak valued" work had he   
composed to seventy years old? The point is that Galenson's samples   
are simply inadequate. These and many other factors have an effect on   
outcomes. Plentiful exceptions to the   
experimentalist/older-conceptual/younger theory make the theory   
unbelievable. An added complexity to the theory of "extreme" and   
"moderate" does nothing to untangle this false dichotomy.  
  
It may well be that there are different forms of creativity and that,   
in general, some genre of conceptual -- often coupled with a "con" --   
art has replaced earlier forms. But in the art world there are other   
and likely better explanations than an artificially divided creative   
impulse. Post-World War II demand factors with lightening-fast taste   
changes is one reason and the use of "art as an investment" is   
another. These factors clearly have had an impact on auction prices,   
museum exhibitions and the "story" of art. The new seventh edition of   
the best-selling _Jansen's History of Art: The Western Tradition_   
illustrates how the story of art history can be retold and retold in   
multiple ways and with different illustrations and emphases. The   
increased pace of conceptual artistic endeavor may also have much to   
do with the incentives of abstract artists in particular and the   
vastly lowered transactions cost in artistic "communications" of all   
types.  
  
Galenson's book, to be fair, is entertaining and informative in its   
own way and the study of factors affecting creativity is interesting.   
Unfortunately his study of bifurcated creativity will require a   
well-executed theoretical and empirical study to make any of his   
conclusions believable.  
  
  
Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. is Edward and Catherine Lowder Eminent Scholar   
(Emeritus) in the Department of Economics at Auburn University and   
Acting Director, Jule Collins Smith Museum of Fine Art at Auburn   
University. He is the author of numerous papers on political economy,   
including studies in the _Journal of Cultural Economics_. He is the   
author of fourteen books, including _The Marketplace of Christianity_   
(MIT Press, forthcoming 2006) and is an amateur artist.  
  
Copyright (c) 2006 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be   
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to   
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the   
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229).   
Published by EH.Net (May 2006). All EH.Net reviews are archived at   
http://www.eh.net/BookReview.  
  
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW  --------------  
EH.Net-Review mailing list  
[log in to unmask]  
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review