The Life Cycles of Modern Artists: Theory, Measurement, and Implications

Abstract

There have been two very different life cycles for important modern artists: some, including Picasso, have made their greatest contributions early in their careers, whereas others, like Cézanne, have produced their best work late in their lives. Art's young geniuses have worked deductively to make conceptual innovations, while its old masters have worked inductively, to innovate experimentally. These two life cycles emerge from quantitative analysis of a wide range of evidence, and recognizing the differences between them allows a new understanding of a number of issues in art history. The two life cycles are furthermore not limited to painting, for the association between deduction and early achievement, and that between induction and late creativity, also clearly appear in quantitative studies of the careers of important economists and poets. Understanding the careers of modern artists therefore leads to a deeper understanding of the life cycles of human creativity in general.

Timelines of creativity: A study of intellectual innovators in information science

“…Our approach can be applied to any discipline or field; we have chosen for reasons of convenience to work with a community we know well. Galenson (2003b) identified important artists and their most influential paintings by counting how often their works were reproduced in leading art history books. Reproductions function, in effect, as citations, allowing one to rank both different artists' relative perceived significance and also to establish the degree of consensus among art historians, critics, and curators as to individual artists' most important paintings.…”

“…Another is that experimentalists tend to produce "their best work late [italics added] in their careers" while conceptualists tend to make "their greatest contributions early [italics added]" (p. 14). Galenson (2003b) noted similarities between artists and academics: "Like the research scholar, the modern artist's goal is to innovate-to produce new methods and results that change the work of other practitioners" (p. 18). Furthermore, Galenson (2005a) stated that the "greatest artists are obviously not those who produce the most works, or even those who produce the most good works, but rather those who produce the works of greatest importance" (p. 5).…”

“…): Rembrandt and Cézanne are examples of the former group, Picasso and Warhol the latter. However, Galenson (2004) recommended that the experimentalist/conceptualist distinction should be viewed "not simply as a binary categorization but instead as a continuum" (p. 126), adding that the two broad categories may both comprise "extreme and moderate" practitioners (p. 124). One of Galenson's (2003a) key findings is that "important conceptual painters produce famous individual masterpieces [italics added], but great experimental painters do not, instead producing important bodies of work [italics added]" (p. 14).…”

E. H. Gombrich on Creativity: A Cognitive–Historical Case Study

“…All told, Gombrich's cognitive style exemplifies a particular creative type, seekers, described by Galenson (2001Galenson ( , 2004Galenson ( , 2005. Galenson distinguished seekers, or experimentalists, from finders, or conceptual innovators.…”

“…Next, the main strands of Gombrich's thinking on creativity are described, to define his cognitive style and understand how he achieved his insights on creativity. These points are integrated by characterizing Gombrich as a particular creative type, the seeker (Galenson, 2001(Galenson, , 2004(Galenson, , 2005. Finally, Gombrich's relevance to contemporary creativity research is discussed, emphasizing current lacunae and promising research directions.…”