What do you think?
Rate this book
Old Masters and Young Geniuses: The Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creativity
When in their lives do great artists produce their greatest art? Do they strive for creative perfection throughout decades of painstaking and frustrating experimentation, or do they achieve it confidently and decisively, through meticulous planning that yields masterpieces early in their lives?
By examining the careers not only of great painters but also of important sculptors, poets, novelists, and movie directors, Old Masters and Young Geniuses offers a profound new understanding of artistic creativity. Using a wide range of evidence, David Galenson demonstrates that there are two fundamentally different approaches to innovation, and that each is associated with a distinct pattern of discovery over a lifetime.
Experimental innovators work by trial and error, and arrive at their major contributions gradually, late in life. In contrast, conceptual innovators make sudden breakthroughs by formulating new ideas, usually at an early age. Galenson shows why such artists as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Jackson Pollock, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost, and Alfred Hitchcock were experimental old masters, and why Vermeer, van Gogh, Picasso, Herman Melville, James Joyce, Sylvia Plath, and Orson Welles were conceptual young geniuses. He also explains how this changes our understanding of art and its past.
Experimental innovators seek, and conceptual innovators find. By illuminating the differences between them, this pioneering book provides vivid new insights into the mysterious processes of human creativity.
By examining the careers not only of great painters but also of important sculptors, poets, novelists, and movie directors, Old Masters and Young Geniuses offers a profound new understanding of artistic creativity. Using a wide range of evidence, David Galenson demonstrates that there are two fundamentally different approaches to innovation, and that each is associated with a distinct pattern of discovery over a lifetime.
Experimental innovators work by trial and error, and arrive at their major contributions gradually, late in life. In contrast, conceptual innovators make sudden breakthroughs by formulating new ideas, usually at an early age. Galenson shows why such artists as Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Jackson Pollock, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost, and Alfred Hitchcock were experimental old masters, and why Vermeer, van Gogh, Picasso, Herman Melville, James Joyce, Sylvia Plath, and Orson Welles were conceptual young geniuses. He also explains how this changes our understanding of art and its past.
Experimental innovators seek, and conceptual innovators find. By illuminating the differences between them, this pioneering book provides vivid new insights into the mysterious processes of human creativity.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 15, 2010
Nearly all the general conclusions and implications were presented better, I think, in Malcolm Gladwell's article. This book primarily offered the supporting evidence and analysis. It is therefore important but not a very good read for any person who is not a fan of art scholarship.
I do have one problem with the basic argument, however. The book presents much evidence to support the thesis--which I was more or less okay with--but it does not at all try to disprove its thesis, leaving me undecided on the theory. I like the idea, and it seems a nice mental framework for structured thinking about creativity and innovation. The book should not, however, convince a skeptic that its central idea is necessarily true.
I do have one problem with the basic argument, however. The book presents much evidence to support the thesis--which I was more or less okay with--but it does not at all try to disprove its thesis, leaving me undecided on the theory. I like the idea, and it seems a nice mental framework for structured thinking about creativity and innovation. The book should not, however, convince a skeptic that its central idea is necessarily true.
Read
May 2, 2014I couldn't' resist picking this book up while visiting a college bookstore, even though I feared it would be dry. I found myself absolutely absorbed by his unique approach to the creative life--coming up with new concepts early in one's working life vs. honing and honing craft over time. I'm a big art geek so I loved reading with a big fat art book on my lap so I could look at the paintings mentioned in the book.
My only reservation--few women mentioned in the book. And we don't fit well. The rhythms of our lives our different, especially if we are mothers. Still a worthy read.
And, women!!! Keep making art!!! Or write, write, write.
My only reservation--few women mentioned in the book. And we don't fit well. The rhythms of our lives our different, especially if we are mothers. Still a worthy read.
And, women!!! Keep making art!!! Or write, write, write.
November 30, 2022
I came to this book via the Paul Simon biography by Malcom Gladwell who used Galenson’s framework as the lens to view Simon’s creative career.
Galenson’s theory is that there are two main types of creatives—the conceptual and the experimental. Conceptual creatives tend to make big waves in the cultural climates they’re a part of because they rethink accepted standards and practices in favor of something simpler and new. Their strength is thinking outside the box in order to innovate and redefine. They know exactly what they want to say, and they find a bold new way to say it. Confidence and clarity is a hallmark of the conceptual artist’s approach, and they tend to peak young.
Experimental artists work in degrees and evolution. Their goals are nebulous and their methods ever changing. They tend to be perfectionists and doomed to always be unsatisfied with their work, never feeling like they’ve “arrived”. If conceptual artists make big statements, experimental artists seek more simply to express, and find nuanced meaning along the way. Their strongest work comes after years of trial and error and they tend to peak later in life.
While I think this broad categorizing is too binary, and can see many instances in history (and myself) where each individual can go through different periods that are more or less conceptual/experimental, I do think this discussion is super interesting and useful. I really enjoyed the discussions about different art movements tending toward one or the other, and different ways each type of creative can combat the pitfalls of their approach.
Maybe even more than the theory framework this book explores, I really enjoyed this book as a great art history book. I found the contextual history and historical documentation of the way important artists worked, and the climates in which they created so fascinating. The addition of exploring creativity itself while looking at major art and artists of history was amazing.
Galenson’s spends the most of the time on art and painters specifically, but there is a brief exploration into sculptors, poets and novelists and filmmakers. My main disappointment with this book is that there was no discussion about music or musicians, and like most art history books, not near enough inclusion of women creatives.
Overall this was so interesting, and an idea that will definitely change the way I think and talk about creativity.
Galenson’s theory is that there are two main types of creatives—the conceptual and the experimental. Conceptual creatives tend to make big waves in the cultural climates they’re a part of because they rethink accepted standards and practices in favor of something simpler and new. Their strength is thinking outside the box in order to innovate and redefine. They know exactly what they want to say, and they find a bold new way to say it. Confidence and clarity is a hallmark of the conceptual artist’s approach, and they tend to peak young.
Experimental artists work in degrees and evolution. Their goals are nebulous and their methods ever changing. They tend to be perfectionists and doomed to always be unsatisfied with their work, never feeling like they’ve “arrived”. If conceptual artists make big statements, experimental artists seek more simply to express, and find nuanced meaning along the way. Their strongest work comes after years of trial and error and they tend to peak later in life.
While I think this broad categorizing is too binary, and can see many instances in history (and myself) where each individual can go through different periods that are more or less conceptual/experimental, I do think this discussion is super interesting and useful. I really enjoyed the discussions about different art movements tending toward one or the other, and different ways each type of creative can combat the pitfalls of their approach.
Maybe even more than the theory framework this book explores, I really enjoyed this book as a great art history book. I found the contextual history and historical documentation of the way important artists worked, and the climates in which they created so fascinating. The addition of exploring creativity itself while looking at major art and artists of history was amazing.
Galenson’s spends the most of the time on art and painters specifically, but there is a brief exploration into sculptors, poets and novelists and filmmakers. My main disappointment with this book is that there was no discussion about music or musicians, and like most art history books, not near enough inclusion of women creatives.
Overall this was so interesting, and an idea that will definitely change the way I think and talk about creativity.
January 16, 2023
Frank Lloyd Wright did not begin his career formally lettered and licensed as an architect. Yet his career was prolific and many of his greatest achievements came later in his life. The same can be said for many authors, musicians, and other creatives. Then there are the young creatives who blaze a path when they first hit the scene only to die young or fade away. This book disseminates the difference between the older experimental creatives and the younger conceptual geniuses.
This duality first was presented to me when reading a book by Malcolm Gladwell, who recommended this book as a source for further research on the topic. While David Galenson’s prosaic style deviates regrettably from Gladwell’s, it remains a compelling read. Especially, if like me, your youth has passed and you’re still striving to put out your best work. A question you can start to answer through the various, though repetitive, analyses of creative processes and outputs for a number of experimental and conceptual creatives.
What really stands out in this book is the scientific and rigorous way Galenson approaches the subject. Galenson provides a significant amount of supporting evidence to prove out his observations. Then he goes into a careful deep dive into the nuance that comprises each group of artists. An import step because we all know artists resist labels, so it’s best to be flexible with categorization. Packed with facts, figures, examples, and critique; this one is a slow read but short book.
This duality first was presented to me when reading a book by Malcolm Gladwell, who recommended this book as a source for further research on the topic. While David Galenson’s prosaic style deviates regrettably from Gladwell’s, it remains a compelling read. Especially, if like me, your youth has passed and you’re still striving to put out your best work. A question you can start to answer through the various, though repetitive, analyses of creative processes and outputs for a number of experimental and conceptual creatives.
What really stands out in this book is the scientific and rigorous way Galenson approaches the subject. Galenson provides a significant amount of supporting evidence to prove out his observations. Then he goes into a careful deep dive into the nuance that comprises each group of artists. An import step because we all know artists resist labels, so it’s best to be flexible with categorization. Packed with facts, figures, examples, and critique; this one is a slow read but short book.
April 14, 2018
In the beginning, it was a rather difficult read for me. Galenson puts out his theory in the first few pages and doesn't seem very concerned with building up suspense. He's not a good story-teller. The structure of the book is more concerned with logical arguments and reminds me of a scientific paper. It seems the author doesn't have much experience with writing for a general public.
So at first I thought I wouldn't rate this book very high, or perhaps not even finish it. But once I allowed myself to follow him on the journey, it became sooooo interesting. The message of the book is really fascinating and anyone interested in the topic of creativity should read it.
This book has changed my perception of quite a few things drastically. And that is worth a lot more than good story-telling. I won't give him the highest rating, as it is sometimes difficult to read when the structure of a chapter is the same as the last three before it. But I will definitely recommend this book warmly!! A worthy read.
So at first I thought I wouldn't rate this book very high, or perhaps not even finish it. But once I allowed myself to follow him on the journey, it became sooooo interesting. The message of the book is really fascinating and anyone interested in the topic of creativity should read it.
This book has changed my perception of quite a few things drastically. And that is worth a lot more than good story-telling. I won't give him the highest rating, as it is sometimes difficult to read when the structure of a chapter is the same as the last three before it. But I will definitely recommend this book warmly!! A worthy read.
April 11, 2020
Fun pop-psy generalizing is finally as unhelpful as it is over-stretched
Want to read
October 25, 2023Mentioned in M Gladwell’s Paul Simon book
May 15, 2009
a fascinating book. because i'm a geek, i really loved the methods section, but i'm probably alone in this.
i heard galenson on npr back in october and was immediately interested in reading this and only now got around to doing so.
it's a dense read, and in proving his point he spends a lot of time hashing through the evidence.
although not intended to make me feel better about my own intellectual pursuits, it does. if you're work is not immediately heralded for critical acclaim, just start thinking of yourself as an old master.
now i just need to convince someone else as easily fascinated as i am to read this so we can geek out together. any takes?
i heard galenson on npr back in october and was immediately interested in reading this and only now got around to doing so.
it's a dense read, and in proving his point he spends a lot of time hashing through the evidence.
although not intended to make me feel better about my own intellectual pursuits, it does. if you're work is not immediately heralded for critical acclaim, just start thinking of yourself as an old master.
now i just need to convince someone else as easily fascinated as i am to read this so we can geek out together. any takes?
January 18, 2009
for what i hoped to get out of this book, i think it was an excellent read. the premise of two different types of creative personalities is introduced right up front and repeatedly substantiated throughout. at times the discourse seems a little overly scholarly, but many of the examples bring wonderful anecdotal evidence to the theory.
May 28, 2009
Using mainly artists, Galenson patiently documents evidence for his theory of two distinctive personality types among creative personality types.
One of the more intriguing theories on creativity I've encountered. If the hypothesis hold, and I think it might, it could have very exciting implications to our fundamental thinking on the creative process.
One of the more intriguing theories on creativity I've encountered. If the hypothesis hold, and I think it might, it could have very exciting implications to our fundamental thinking on the creative process.
September 2, 2016
This is where Malcolm Gladwell is at his best; turning me on to other writer's books. This is what I call an idea book. Are you a conceptualist or are you and experimentalist? I think that I am an experimentalist and a middle-aged journeyman on his way to becoming an Old Master.
Read
February 13, 2014Interesting
April 26, 2013
Fascinating, valid, and useful.
February 8, 2014
Excellent, thought-provoking little book that should provoke much introspection in any creative person.
December 28, 2011
Very enlightening analysis of how the creative mind works.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews