the brain interviews, Charlie Rose....

Among all the interesting ideas raised, there were several that I found either great-funny, great truths, and/or great insights. "I don't know what I think until I read what I wrote." Wonderful!! I think a lot of art is like that.

The fact that everyone agreed that "imitation" or the development of skills was an essential underpinning of "the new" in order for it to be "the great" was a really important  point in the recognition of competence as a basis for whatever was called "creativity" by outsiders.

I loved the idea that the artist only went halfway in creating something "new". The viewer had to bring it home, so to speak, in reaction to the creation.

Richard Serra said he was really interested in materials. He talked about the changing nature of space, which is abstract, but then defined it in terms of materials, in the creation of it's nature. I liked the way he talked about his process.

And who ever knew that Melville was in love with Hawthorne? Wow. Interesting little tidbits floating around all the important stuff. Fun, nevertheless. Although I doubt poor Melville thought it was fun.

I also really related to the idea that both artists talked about backing themselves into a corner, which they then had to figure out a way to get out of. That's a kind of problem solving, but it seems to me that it also incorporates another thing that was said at a different time. I think it was Close who said that he didn't so much solve problems as he tried to figure out WHAT problem( s ) to solve. He also talked about restrictions freeing him to solve those problems more easily.

All of these insights I thought were really interesting, and seemed to be totally without guile or pretentiousness, which was really refreshing.

The idea that has caused me the most speculation, though, is that both men were very sensitive to the idea that they didn't want to do anything that had been done before. While they didn't create a causal relationship between the processes they described and that basic tenet, I think that their success in truly breaking new ground in the creation of their art is why they stand above many fine artists who work to create "the new", while actually creating variations on the old. These guys really did it.

Maybe they were in the right place at the right time. Maybe they created the right place. None of that was raised as a major question, because of course it is another issue entirely, having more to do with a collective reality of their audience than with the creativity of their individual reality. I think that would be a good topic of discussion.

I love Charlie Rose.

Christine