Topic: Thoughts on David Bowie

[hookstrapped]

I remember this bit of advice I heard a number of times regarding establishing one's self as a photographer, and it rankled me each time:  Focus on one thing, one thing that you're really good at so that people will think of you in connection with that style or look.

That's bullshit on so many levels, but it's quite the prevailing wisdom. Of course, it's really marketing advice, not artistic advice.  Then I thought of Bowie and how he destroyed such lame self-limiting wisdom:

"His reinventions were complete overhauls — he’d emerge with a new sound and a corresponding new harmonic vocabulary, a new set of rhythms, and a wholly different lyrical strategy, and leave it to listeners to sort things out. It can be difficult to believe that the singer who slinked through 'Young Americans' is the same one singing about 'Sufregette City' is the same one intoning grimly on Blackstar about 'Lazarus.'

Where other artists followed the rules of whichever genre they were visiting, Bowie went the other way—his investigations transformed the genres. To wit: The dark sound-paintings of Low started out evoking the somber and solemn foreboding of a strain of German electronic music. But as it unfolded, from far across the tundra of sound, Bowie introduced a distinct (and distinctly disquieting) vulnerability that is only present here, on his records. He covered the expectations and specifications of the genre and didn’t stop there—he added other levels, gave his stances serious dimension and often menace, furnished his narratives with meta-conceptual overlays. And like an impressionistic master, he used implication and nuance, shading and pastel colorations, to fill out the terrifying and beautiful images.

Bowie did this serially, over and over, across decades. Not every transformation was a smashing success. Not every move was understood. But right on through the shadowy Blackstar, with its croaking entreaties 'Look up here, I’m in heaven,' his work is notable for what it says about art and inspiration. A significant part of his legacy is in the ways he went about being an artist. His restlessness. His refusal to stay in one place. He brought sophisticated art-world radicalism to pop, and in borrowing those technique, he captivated listeners—and challenged them at the same time.

Sure, study the records, they’re brilliant. But also study his choices, his thinking, the path he took as an artist. His example as a musical seeker, provocateur and destabilizer doesn’t seem to have many followers right now. We could sure use a few."

https://medium.com/cuepoint/on-david-bowie-empty-voids-and-doubt-presence-and-absence-23fa58a5e466#.xn5mbyw4n

[Indofunk]

The original advice you speak of is intended for the 99.99% of us who are normal people. It is not intended for the geniuses among us, who, like Bowie, Miles Davis, HCB, and many others, do not need that advice.

[Sandeha Lynch]

"A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life."

Mohammed Ali.

[Late Developer]

Some of his creations / recreations I liked, others never fired my imagination at all.  I have always been more interested in music than image.  He was someone whose singles I usually liked but whose albums (and I bought a number of them) never held my attention right the way through. 

I'm not being mean spirited as David Bowie was a hugely talented and influential musician and the world needs more of those - especially in the largely bland and corporate musical landscape we live today.

[Sandeha Lynch]

I hardly dare admit that I saw him at Glastonbury in 1971 ... and walked away from the set.  I wasn't impressed.  But I am moved by the loss as he was a great figure. 

I was once mistaken for him, though.   

[charles binns]

I'd tend to agree with Indofunk.  It takes a huge amount of talent and self confidence to be able to reinvent yourself time and time again and produce outstanding work.

I was never a huge Bowie fan, though I do like his early stuff (Laughing Gnome excepted). Bauhaus did a great cover of Ziggy Stardust and I always remember Rik Mayall's rendition of Ashes to Ashes' chorus on the The Young Ones.

[hookstrapped]

The original advice you speak of is intended for the 99.99% of us who are normal people. It is not intended for the geniuses among us, who, like Bowie, Miles Davis, HCB, and many others, do not need that advice.

From a sample size of 2 (HCB did the same thing throughout his career), you associate doing different things with genius, yet genius also can be found among those who pursue a single style, as can mediocrity. The point is that perhaps if people pursued different genres and styles more, more great work would be produced.

I think that's a perfectly plausible proposition,. It's likely to be stimulating and challenging for the artist. Especially in something like photography, where basic competence is relatively easy and quick to achieve.

[Francois]

Well... never having been much of a Bowie fanboy (though I did like his Lets Dance period, which is surprisingly the part of his career he was the most disappointed of), I can't say the news shocked me more than anything. The only thing that surprised me was that he was only 69 and that he died of cancer.

As for the 99.99%, I only can think about what is society's accepted rate of change and the effect of "stardom" on its acceptability level.
And then, there are those individuals who are simply impossible to grasp.

[Indofunk]

The original advice you speak of is intended for the 99.99% of us who are normal people. It is not intended for the geniuses among us, who, like Bowie, Miles Davis, HCB, and many others, do not need that advice.

From a sample size of 2 (HCB did the same thing throughout his career), you associate doing different things with genius, yet genius also can be found among those who pursue a single style, as can mediocrity. The point is that perhaps if people pursued different genres and styles more, more great work would be produced.

I think that's a perfectly plausible proposition,. It's likely to be stimulating and challenging for the artist. Especially in something like photography, where basic competence is relatively easy and quick to achieve.

Yes, you're right. Genius does not necessarily mean changing streams constantly. But I would propose that being able to change streams constantly AND still maintain a level of artistic excellence throughout is a mark of genius. Which I for one do not possess

[Francois]

But this all comes back to a simple question: what is genius?

[Late Developer]

But this all comes back to a simple question: what is genius?

Oh Crimmins - he's only just gone and lit the blue touchpaper.....!!

My two-penneth:

These days, virtually anyone who does anything well (or exceptionally well) will be referred to as a "genius" by somebody (usually somebody who can't do whatever the "genius" in question can do).  By way of one example, I've even seen one of my former colleagues (an insurance manager) referred to as nothing less than a "visionary" as well as a "genius".  Clearly, there's hope for me yet....

Seriously, though, "Genius" must be one of the most over-used and inappropriately applied epithets of our time.  I'd also argue that as it's incredibly subjective, it tends to be attributed to those we like or hold up as our "heroes" (no refernce to David Bowie intended) as if by saying someone we like is a "genius" we can bask in some of their reflected glory.

One of the photographers I regard as a genius is Ansel Adams.  I used to think everyone held the same view until I saw some people saying he was boring and formulaic.  I still regard him as a genius.

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

I got to see the Bowie exhibition in Chicago when I was there about 18 months ago.

I have always been a Bowie fan, went to see the serious moonlight tour back in the day in Adelaide but it wasn't until the exhibition that I twigged to what he was all about.

Art.

The beginning and the end - He was all about art. To him art was about creativity, creativity was about pushing the boundaries of whatever medium he was working with at the time - music, film, dance, painting, writing.

Once you see a retrospective of an artist it does help to complete the picture. It is this picture of the man as a non stop creative art being that was his overall attraction.

This is why there is a ripple in the universe and the stars look very different today.

[Francois]

If you do like the arty part of it, make sure you check out "Mick Rock. The Rise of David Bowie, 1972–1973" on Taschen.com
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/film_music/all/45306/gallery.mick_rock_the_rise_of_david_bowie_19721973.htm