------------ 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
|