In the early 1970s, it was a standard aesthetic criterion that "development" was a good thing, a necessary thing - and that the developed was better.
I first came across it in pop music. e.g. The idea that The Beatles were good because their music developed, from album to another the style (and subject matter) changed - and later Beatles was better than earlier.
Anyone who thought the opposite, and preferred "their early stuff" was shallow, simple-minded, dumb...
Same in classical music, as I later discovered. The "Great Composers" all (supposedly) developed, and all kept on getting better.
Critics seemed unanimous that middle period Beethoven was better than early - with which most lay-people agreed; and best of all were his latest works (especially the last string quartets), with which the music-loving public certainly disagreed.
The same applied across the board really - whether in other arts and literature, or in intellectual pursuits; and even in the spiritual realm.
CG Jung's most influential concept was perhaps the desirability of "personal development" as the proper goal of human life - through the middle and late twentieth century this ideal became almost a new religion.
So what was this development that was so good?
The direction of desirable-development was (nearly-) always towards less-immediate appeal; more serious/ less fun (or funny); longer; more complex - more difficult.
Those qualities that had initially attracted people to, say, The Beatles or Beethoven and which brought them to notice, popularity, high status; were thereby downgraded.
In particular that rather indefinable quality of "freshness" that characterizes early work and accounts for its immediacy of appeal; that unselfconscious spontaneity and fluidity; the absence of that striving, effort, and contrivance which typically dominates later (more serious/ complex/ lengthy etc) work...
That naturalness of expression and clarity of achievement was looked-down-upon; together with the responses that went with it - such as laughter (instead of sophisticated "wit").
In an overall sense; it was hard for an honest observer to conclude that development meant "better" - because "the developed" was almost a different thing altogether! Indeed; literally so in the case of developments in Modern Art and Architecture, and modern Classical Music - where "the developed" was often unrecognizable in terms of the aims and virtues and appeal of the starting point.
What about personal development? Well, the analogy seems close.
The direction of PD was towards self-consciousness, seriousness, effort and control, a balancing and integration of multiple complexities, by means of complex theories and learned-practices.
This can be linked-back to the development of personality in religion; where a similar trajectory was recommended and observed.
There was little doubt that people could be (usually were) changed by prolonged religious training, increased knowledge, study, and practices; and these differences were of the same sort as seen in the arts.
But whether that differentness from his starting condition actually made the person "better" in any kind of overall or basic sense was very debateable. Often enough it made them worse!
This is where we now stand - at the end of an era in which development was the ideal, and its benefits were assumed; to one in which such claims are seen to be a false generalization, and often self-serving.
But Men cannot live without purpose. And if development is discarded then it must be (indeed, it will be) replaced with some other ideal - even if that ideal is implicit, unconscious, denied.
If we cannot truly develop in any genuinely religious or spiritual fashion - then what should we be doing, aiming-at, instead?
(As usual, the necessary first step to finding an answer, is to acknowledge the question.)
Jesus tells us that we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless we become like little children, but St. Paul says he put away childish things when he became a man. And certainly the sort of naivety and simplicity which is charming in a child is mostly not charming in a mature person. (A reason given for the declining popularity of the Adrian Mole series as Adrian aged, although I like them all.)
ReplyDeleteApparently Oscar Wilde said that "only mediocrities develop", which was quoted approvingly by Philip Larkin.
I must admit, I'm on Team Development. To go back to the Beatles example...there is a wonderful freshness and energy about "I Want To Hold Your Hand", but it can't really compare to "A Day in the Life". Similarly Yeats's later poetry is greatly superior, in my view, to his early work-- as good as that is. Of course, not all artists develop, and some decline. But if developments HAPPENS, it seems a good thing to me.
@Mal - Although there are examples that work for some people, one common pattern in the arts is that somebody learns their craft, then produces a single really good work, maybe two - and the later work (which may be much more abundant) is inferior.
ReplyDeleteThis is often seen in novels when the first published novel is often the favourite and best. In music this is the One Hit Wonder.
But the most common among creative people of all kinds I think is to rise to a peak level, of relatively short length, and then decline. But the development mania such that this is denied, and "the critics" insist that the later (more complex, much less immediately attractive) is better - for example with Verdi's or Wagner's operas where the last works (i.e. Falstaff and Parsifal) have never been enjoyed by the keen layman as the middle works (Trovatore, Traviata, Rigoletto - or the early three Ring operas in the case of Wagner).
Even Mozart, who died young, showed some possible signs of developmental decline from the peak reached a few years previously. His last opera (Clemenza di Tito) is a dud, his unfinished Requiem seems mostly turgid... Freshness and spontaneity largely absent.
wrt poetry; I am only moderately fond of Yeats, but anyway he is perhaps the single generally acknowledged exception among poets. And even then...
Most poets only write what I regard as Real (i.e. lyrical) poetry when relatively young, and their later work is more complex, longer, less immediately appealing, less fluid and spontaneous etc.
Consequently, their best (i.e. most "poetic") poetry comes straight after the apprentice phase, and seldom lasts more than a decade, and usually less.
In a technically difficult craft like orchestral classical music, the best comes later than in the simpler arts such as song and poetry; but even here the best often comes *relatively* early in the life.
The perils of development may also apply to the historical trajectory of art forms - so that classical music just got so hyper- "developed" as to become wholly unenjoyable except to highly expert professional practitioners (e.g. Schoenberg).
Perhaps the same applies to The Novel, in the sense that the line of classical novel writing of people such as Austen, Eliot, Dickens (hugely popular) - became so "difficult" with Henry James, Joyce, Proust etc that the general reading public lost interest - and good popular novels "reverted" to the 19th century models (with stylistic and content tweaks).
Anyway, the subject is expanding way beyond a comment!...
Perhaps as it is my view--much development is a distraction....some is skill improvement in ones profession or trade and valuable. Maturity wroght by time can occur. but some personal development efforts like Yoga, Accordion lessons, tango and the like may in part be distractions.
ReplyDeleteI greatly love and admire “deliberate” art, even some that crosses well over the line into propaganda. I mean art where the artist had a philosophical vision (the more thought-out, coherent, and uniquely their own the better) and labors carefully within their craft to concretize it. However, historically it can’t be denied that there is something dead about that path. A handful of artists have really achieved it, but no one can build upon those works successfully. I’m glad they exist, and there is something romantic about them being ends in themselves, but one swallow does not a summer make and a handful of great works are never going to sustain a civilization. Also biographically creating such works rarely seems to spiritually benefit the artist.
ReplyDeleteI think more traditionally there is something like a subconscious pool of creative potential and the reason earlier works tend to be better in the way you describe is that the stronger ideas swim closer to surface and also the ones that vibe most naturally with the artist tend to get fished out first and manifested.
@Mia - I am pretty sensitive to whether I regard the artist as sincerely trying to do his best (I don't like it when a work is squeezed out and contrived); but on the other hand, I think a lot of creative people are trying to act out a fantasy of what they think they would like to do, rather than what they are actually gifted to do.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who writes a lot, I initially did the expected/fantasy things of writing poetry, short stories, even a novel - despite that it became very obvious I was a philosophical kind of writer - an "ideas man" (with, in younger years, a fair bit of humour within this genre). The world is full of people like me then - people who want to be "a poet"/ "a novelist", but have not the innate disposition for it.
So my attempts at poetry and fiction were totally "manufactured" and laboured over; whereas the ideas stuff flowed as fast as the ideas, and was actually better written.
I think of Scott Joplin who had a gift for writing ragtime piano, and whose best work was done in that genre - trying to fill these short pieces with all of his yearnings and joys. In this he was supreme, and the work is much loved by many and has a niche in musical history.
But his attempt to write an opera was tragic, just about destroying his life (before he lapsed into syphilis dementia) - and the opera just isn't very good - lacking in spark and flow, too "contrived".
Joplin was one of many who try to too hard to force their innate and destined gifts, indeed their *lives*, to flow into the wrong channel.
The only writing that seems to build up to great novels sometimes is journalism, maybe only wartime correspondent journalism, and I can’t tell if that aids artistic growth or merely doesn’t get in its way as much as other forms of preparatory writing.
ReplyDeleteMy sister is quite a good ragtime and jazz pianist and she often contrasts Joplin with (I believe) Jelly Roll Morton as two greats but the former wanting to be grand more than great. But then I wouldn’t say that the effort to bring that type of music to the concert hall was a failure or dead-end historically even if it was personally for Joplin.
As for development, I’m a skeptic. New forms emerge in art, but I reject the idea that the best ones are “developments.” The novel is not a “development” out of prior forms, nor is classical sculpture or architecture IMO. Nor is the wheel and axel! We only strive to define them as such bc we reject the possibility of direct creative injections into the world. Certainly it’s easy to see how dull it is when old people amuse themselves by “always learning” something new. The common denominator is valuing a sort of youthful acquisitive growth above all else rather than recognizing a time to cast away stones (or a time to organize/love better the same old stones you’ve long had). Haydn I think was an example of an aging composer who while obviously writing less and less well at life-end nonetheless continued to write sincerely with love the same old stuff (as well as famously replaying his old stuff). Funny since he was considered “innovative” in his day but that term took on such an extreme new meaning with Beethoven that Haydn just looks gimmicky by comparison.
Sorry, too long for a comment, but I’m going to hit publish anyway so I don’t forget what I’ve written!