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
