You (and Thea) might be interested in the work of David Galenson, an economist who looks at the question of human creativity. He divided artists into two groups: conceptualists, who make radical innovations in their field at a very early age; and experimentalists, whose innovations develop slowly over a long period of experimentation and…
You (and Thea) might be interested in the work of David Galenson, an economist who looks at the question of human creativity. He divided artists into two groups: conceptualists, who make radical innovations in their field at a very early age; and experimentalists, whose innovations develop slowly over a long period of experimentation and refinement. Picasso's greatest work, for example, comes early in his life while Cezanne's most prized paintings are from his last decade. It's really fascinating stuff.
Galenson used two metrics to track when artists did their "best" work: he looked at auction prices and at scholarly discussion, and found a pretty high correlation between the works that scholars are most interested in and the ones that the market values the highest.
I wonder if it would be possible to similarly correlate critical assessment with charts and album sales, perhaps using Metacritic and Allmusic?
And, yeah, “scholar.” Galenson went by which works were reproduced in textbooks, exhibited in museums, and discussed in other scholarly works, and how often. Art History has clearer markers of expertise than rock/pop music criticism, though. And he was writing in ca. 2000 when it was easier to parse the discourse.
I feel like jazz labels have figured this out - Lee Konitz, Paul Motian, Charles Lloyd, and Pharaoh Sanders all had successful runs as late career masters, and it wasn’t just as nostalgia acts.
You (and Thea) might be interested in the work of David Galenson, an economist who looks at the question of human creativity. He divided artists into two groups: conceptualists, who make radical innovations in their field at a very early age; and experimentalists, whose innovations develop slowly over a long period of experimentation and refinement. Picasso's greatest work, for example, comes early in his life while Cezanne's most prized paintings are from his last decade. It's really fascinating stuff.
Galenson used two metrics to track when artists did their "best" work: he looked at auction prices and at scholarly discussion, and found a pretty high correlation between the works that scholars are most interested in and the ones that the market values the highest.
I wonder if it would be possible to similarly correlate critical assessment with charts and album sales, perhaps using Metacritic and Allmusic?
I have to check this out. This is a brilliant idea
Galenson’s work is right up your alley; I hope you enjoy it!
This is juicy. And the findings could change how musicians / labels market their products. How one defines "scholar" would be of particular interest.
And, yeah, “scholar.” Galenson went by which works were reproduced in textbooks, exhibited in museums, and discussed in other scholarly works, and how often. Art History has clearer markers of expertise than rock/pop music criticism, though. And he was writing in ca. 2000 when it was easier to parse the discourse.
Agreed about markers of expertise. Does a 16 yo TikTok influencer with 500k followers sit at the same table as Ted Gioia?
Ha! Hard to say, but I would love to sit at that table, too, just to hear what would get said.
😄
I feel like jazz labels have figured this out - Lee Konitz, Paul Motian, Charles Lloyd, and Pharaoh Sanders all had successful runs as late career masters, and it wasn’t just as nostalgia acts.