Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Great Ideas Get Rejected  (Read 1369 times)
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5807



WWW
« on: August 08, 2012, 12:12:19 AM »
ReplyReply

So, where are you on the creative<-->practical scale?

http://99u.com/articles/7207/Why-Great-Ideas-Get-Rejected

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2012, 10:39:47 AM »
ReplyReply

So, where are you on the creative<-->practical scale?

http://99u.com/articles/7207/Why-Great-Ideas-Get-Rejected

Mike.

Interesting article. I shall continue to refine my creative idea of placing Kangaroos and traditional Apsara dancers in unusual places.  Grin
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2012, 03:52:59 PM »
ReplyReply

The author equates "creative" with "new."  I personally prefer to equate "creative" with "remarkable."  Artists who are losing their camp followers by getting too far out on the "new" limb might have better luck on the "remarkable" limb.  "New" is only one of the many subsets of "remarkable" which encompasses a much richer ground.  "Remarkable" tends to leave audiences with a secure place to stand on while their jaws drop. "New" taken too far just pulls the rug out from under them, which makes it difficult to even see the work.

A nice thing about the "remarkable" definition is that it weeds out the untalented and unskilled poseurs who can so easily call themselves artists by the "new" criteria.  You gotta be good to be "remarkable."  Being "new" or even "conceptual" is not enough, one usually has to have some mastery of one's medium to be "remarkable."

The whole "new" thing is a left over dinosaur appendix from the 50's when American culture was dominated and dictated by the "Tradition of the New."  New was the bright Tomorrow Land just over the horizon.  Sometimes it grew fins.  The Europeans got it too, but not as bad.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2012, 05:14:09 PM »
ReplyReply

The author equates "creative" with "new."  I personally prefer to equate "creative" with "remarkable."  Artists who are losing their camp followers by getting too far out on the "new" limb might have better luck on the "remarkable" limb.  "New" is only one of the many subsets of "remarkable" which encompasses a much richer ground.  "Remarkable" tends to leave audiences with a secure place to stand on while their jaws drop. "New" taken too far just pulls the rug out from under them, which makes it difficult to even see the work.

A nice thing about the "remarkable" definition is that it weeds out the untalented and unskilled poseurs who can so easily call themselves artists by the "new" criteria.  You gotta be good to be "remarkable."  Being "new" or even "conceptual" is not enough, one usually has to have some mastery of one's medium to be "remarkable."

The whole "new" thing is a left over dinosaur appendix from the 50's when American culture was dominated and dictated by the "Tradition of the New."  New was the bright Tomorrow Land just over the horizon.  Sometimes it grew fins.  The Europeans got it too, but not as bad.


Bill, what are you implying?

The poor Europeans bought the embarrassed, finless Sierra because it was foist upon them - Jelly Moulds ruled in studios of car design.

I love fins; it goes back to when I was a fish. Didn't you use to be one too, just a few short generations ago? Dammit, I'm sure I recognize all of us from those days. The odour of the fish is upon us at the most appropriate moments; do we not recognize therein the nature of our own creation?

I also love fish 'n' chips (the chips golden, dry, and made in the hottest olive oil that the basket can bear without ignition). Which must prove something, if only that the touch of the cannibal is no bad thing sometimes, and closer to our nature than we might suspect...

Rob C
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2012, 06:00:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I would not have considered that the word "remarkable" was entirely appropriate.  We are constantly subjected to the remarkable completely devoid of "creative" juices.

I agree that in art terms the link between "creative" and "new" need not entirely be of high-tensile impregnability but for the most part the very concept of "creative" does imply a level of "originality".  And "originality" can all too often be confused with "new".

Cheers,

Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2012, 07:36:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Rob, I just KNEW I could reel you in with that simple fin-baited hook!  Yes those were the days, but what a mistake it was crawling up on the beach like that!  We were so young.  To this day there is still something je ne sais crois about the rhythmic swaying of a well rounded dorsal fin.

And you seem to forget the magnificent 1959, 270 Vauxhall PA Cresta, shown here pink in color!  What a snappy little number that is!  It's remarkable, not a jello-mould in sight.  There's one much like it in Santa Fe, no doubt brought over on your taxes by some low-level consul.




******************************************************************************

But as far as "remarkable" goes, I should have mentioned that my definition does not allow for art that is ordinary, merely interesting, merely new, boring, made by unskilled means, or mediocre in any way.  Scratch "remarkable" and replace it with "knocks your freakin' socks off!"  If creativity does not knock your freakin' socks off, it's not doing its job.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2012, 04:13:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill, your shot should be over on the new Car thread considerately titled For Rob's eyes.

No, I didn't forget the Cresta nor even the Velox, but in their day (or pond) I preferred the Zephys and Zodiacs. It's a thing the Australians probably understand: Ford or Holden, shark or barracuda.

Where I think the U.K. car folks went over the dam is explained by a closer look at the port-side front corner (therein the problem!) of your pink car: the illumination details are simply applied, stuck onto a flat sheet of graceless metal: that sharp, flat panel should have had the delightful, proud curve of a proper sex symbol which, undoubtedly, a beautiful car most certainly is. (That's probably why I had my X1/9 during my early forties, why I traded away my 'blads a few years later, but that's another, oft-told story not worth a re-float, so I'll let you off that particular hook.)

Hell, the washing machine tells me the wash is over, time to retrieve it and hang out the line again; just my luck to pick today with new, dusty, Sahara-born storm/mud clouds building up. I hate bringing damp clothes and things back indoors in the evening, especially if they are dirtier than when they went out.

Oh - here's a portrait of our cousin attached below. Ravenous mother, he be.

Rob C
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad