3 ms·
“ just because someone did great things in the past doesn't mean they will in the future” I would say a Picasso or a Da Vinci is much more likely to create som
by andreilys 6y ago
“ just because someone did great things in the past doesn't mean they will in the future”
I would say a Picasso or a Da Vinci is much more likely to create something meaningful given the track record at the height of their career, than some random person off the street.
I think you’re underestimating the amount of effort it takes to master a given field, and the subsequent dividends that are paid when you achieve mastery.
- coldtea 6y agoNot necessarily. After some point, any new Picasso was just "more of the same". The reason his later works are still valuable is mostly because of our fetishism with the products of (already) famous artists + inflation by galleries and art merchants -- not because of any unique new insight/style/proposition/innovation/inherent value they had.
- andreilys 6y agoYou chose a bad example. Picasso is famous for reinventing himself and abandoning cubism (which he invented) to study and pursue classical painting.
- enkid 6y agoBut would those classical paintings be as famous if his earlier work wasn't? Probably not.
- gowld 6y agoAnd Billy Joel switched from Pop to Classical, but his Classical work wasn't as important as his Pop work. He's no Picasso but the pattern holds.
- coldtea 6y ago>Picasso is famous for reinventing himself and abandoning cubism (which he invented) to study and pursue classical painting. He abandoned cubism in his 20s or so. He afterwards had 50+ years of more boring work with less re-invention.