Certainly I disagree with the "probably more likely" part, and I have
my doubts about the "as likely" part as well. But it's not easy to
measure, since subjectivity is inevitable, even one's own wandering
taste. Do I prefer late Beethoven to the works of his 30s? Usually,
but not always.Likewise late Shakespeare, Milton, Williams, Rembrandt, Rothko.
Sometimes it's easier. My own work in my twenties was crap, the
quality pretty sporadic in my thirties.
Mark
At 02:35 AM 8/26/2009, you wrote:
>Which statement is that, Mark: "You are as likely, and probably more
>likely, to do your best work in your 20s and 30s than at any other
>age." Do you disagree?
>Mairead
>
>On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:22 AM, Mark Weiss
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>A few years ago, there was a big exhibition of 20th century art at
>the very substantial museum in my school. It was spread out over
>many rooms, and I added up the ages of the artists showing in each
>room to get an average age of the successful 20th century artists at
>the time they made the work shown: it was 34. Okay, that's not
>22. But you are as likely, and probably more likely, to do your
>best work in your 20s and 30s than at any other age.
>
>
>
>That's quite a statement to make on the basis of a very small
>sample, all of it one curator's choices made under the usual
>constraints. The life-rhythms of artists (in any genre) are
>extraordinarily varied, but there are an awful lot of them who have
>produced great art throughout their lives and transcendent work in
>old age (those lucky enough to live that long).
>
>Mark
>
|