Personaly i like used..or weathered..

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder...

If perfection can't be measured, then it's sort of an abstract concept.

What is considered a flaw by one person, may not be by another.

As far as I know, there is are no measurements for perfection in the arts.

It's a matter of perception, and interpretation.

Like Al said... eye of the beholder.  Some of this guy's work/creativity/???  got "stifled."    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kost

From the article: "Kost was notorious for burning any paintings that he was not satisfied with and thus destroyed hundreds of works over the years."

I worked in Lac du Bonnet from '72 - '74, but didn't really know him.  The [British] owner/foreman of the construction outfit I worked for had a bee in his bonnet re. Kost [I have no idea what was behind it]. His critique of Kost's work was typically: "I may not be a judge of art, but I know a foo*** mess when I see one."

I think perfection, or at least the seeking of perfection is needed to create great art or even music or any other endevor that requires mental activity. Without perfection there would be no Stradivari, Mozart, Eienstein, Da Vinci, or any other great master of their chosen area. Creativity plays into perfection, not hinders it. IMHO

It’s hard to argue that most of Earl Scruggs’ playing is too perfect. The combination of hard-earned skill and “soul” begets excellent art. Those who stiffly try for perfection before the necessary years of practice and flaws fall short of the goal. “How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” …..

I think that depends on the person’s definition of “perfection.” In a painting, photo realism is less appealing to me than beautifully executed Impressionism or somewhere in between. I can’t say why, really, the latter forms are just more moving to me, while the painting that looks like a photograph could certainly be said to be a more “perfect” depiction of the subject. A painter friend says that’s because the human mind likes to fill in gaps and see what it wants to see. In the banjo world, I liken it to a particular individual I played with once upon a time. He was a super-cool and knowledgeable guy; extremely adept at playing, and technically excellent at playing very close to note for note of a given recording - worlds better than me at the time, no question. On the other hand, if we played a tune he didn’t know and hadn’t memorized, he was out; and even the stuff he knew was technically tight, but it lacked emotion. In another context, I have some friends with a legit band. When their bassist doesn’t travel here, they have played with a local bassist whose chops on bass are way beyond mine - WAY - but they don’t use him any more and use me instead, because they say that - while they acknowledge that I’m not as good as him, technically - there is more feeling and movement in my playing (which is an enormous and probably unwarranted compliment). I hear and feel things, whether banjo, guitar or bass, that I don’t know how to find; but that’s my goal - to play what I hear and feel, not to sound like the way another person played it; though I try to steal from the best ;-). I aspire to that goal, because that is where I believe the true artistry lives.

I believe perfection is subjected. Was Da Vinci perfect heck no his fly screw never got made far as I know and it sure wasn’t air worthy Was the Mona Lisa perfect? depends on who you ask. It’s no doubt a very fine piece of art work.

I have a copy of “The Music Lesson,” by Victor Wooten, which I got from a friend for Christmas. I’m told it addresses this very topic. I haven’t gotten to it yet, but this post may be the catalyst that nudges me to get on and read it.

“The pursuit of perfection leads to madness “. Tommy 5.” While nobody can be perfect, the pursuit of perfection leads to excellence., “Vince Lombardi. I prefer my version.

A bunch of us founded a fraternity at university. One of the things you write into the constitution is a set of goals. You deliberately make them unachievable because the striving is the thing. You don't set goals you can easily achieve - that's like cheating at solitaire.

I think artists try to achieve their visions. Each one's "perfection" is different. as is each viewer's of that artist's work. (The Mrs. is definitely not fond of our Manly MacDonald painting, but I appreciate his technique [knowing that there are other paintings of his that I'd rather have - but couldn't afford] and the overall effect.) "One person's trash is another person's treasure."

Imperfections....
Can be perfect ..in thier own right..

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

Is the Hounding of perfection detrimental to the arts? Crafts?

While in Santa Fe, visiting many museums and shops, and craft markets, this thought came to me as I viewed all of Native arts and crafts, and antiquities. (Many pieces were of antiquity and utilitarian, as well.) Soon a discussion with my brain incurred regarding…
Does the pursuit “perfection” , or the pressure or need to achieve perfection stifle both creativity in the mind, and the creation of art. (Perhaps the crafts as well) All arts: music, painting, ceramics, jewelry making, sculpting, etc.
Is perfection necessary, or detrimental?
Brad (I may have poorly opened this potential discussion, but a lot is going through my head.)

Brad

---

Define 'perfection'.

My guess is that the direction of your question is influenced to some extent by the common equation of naturalism or photographic or realist technique with 'quality' and 'ability'? That approach does not inhibit creativity in itself but it has a singular aim i.e. that the created image should resemble as closely as possible the subject of the image. Any 'inhibition' only comes into play if a creative mind wants to explore another approach but feels pressured into meeting that singular expectation.

What many people don't realise or respect is that often the most technically adept and creative minds have mined-out the possibilities of 'realism' very early in their career. 'Standing still' creatively isn't an option; their powerful and overriding creative drive takes them in other directions to explore new possibilities that can hold their interest. But some people appear to get hot under the collar or assume they are being 'duped' by that creative exploration. 

I'm a painter myself, studied at art college from age 18-22 and spent most of my career as an illustrator and designer. Now freed from the need to meet clients expectations to make money from my work I have the freedom to produce images to satisfy  my own interest. I please myself. And that involves a constant engagement with idea and process. Most visual artists that I know share some version of the same approach, though our end results will vary enormously.

In regard to much early creative output form and function cannot be sensibly separated. Objects are imbued with meaning by their design. An obvious example is Anglo-Saxon metalwork; the stylised animal forms have symbolism that is intrinsic to the use of that object

BTW, thank you for posting such an interesting topic for discussion.

Zach said "... A painter friend says that’s because the human mind likes to fill in gaps and see what it wants to see..."
This thought gives me pause to think about it.

One thing I learned at one of the museums that has very instructive story boards for many of the pieces: pottery, jewelry, and more. Even earlier decorative pottery had design work/patterns that mess with the eye and brain. Especially the black and white graphic designs, that seemed further developed for the trade business.
Does your mind look at the positive pattern (dark) or the negative pattern (lighter). your mind may see it differently than the next mind.
Do you naturally see the negative design element, or the the positive?
brad

Another thought on this topic.
Live appearances or recorded music preference?
Live performance has many advantages and sensory sensation. However, with most bands you hear flaws: a sour note from a singer, a blown lead progression, a rhythm player misses a chord change, etc. That does not bother me at all. I relate to it. Its seems more "organic." Whatever that means. Brad

My profession is a combination of art and science leaning much more toward art. My greatest criticism of others in this profession, as well as myself, is "thinking too much" or over analyzing everything. I think the greatest artists worked more by "feel", often seeing things in objects that most of us never see. That can be achieved through "perfection" of execution or perfection of a concept (i.e a rough sketch from an artist) A friend of mine from college is acknowledged as one of the finest bird carvers (started carving decoys) in the world. A curator at one of the well known museum's said he was the first person that he had seen since Audubon that was able to capture something in his carvings that others just can't achieve. So to answer your question I would say if "perfection" (in execution) is your only goal, it would be detrimental.

In me World...
I took most all the reallyy um..tickelish blast jobs...

The one others would shy away form...

Actually i like thos jobs the best..

They pay well...
More often than not...
Nobody argues with me..
As i am taking all the risk..

Not only that but i must get all the support that i request..


I have done ..hundreds of these types of jobs..some big..n some very small...


So far....no ..catasstrophys...


The only thing the shyer awawyers will say after the successes i have had..


Is He is the Luckyest....
Bassturd.......


Grey matter/n ..nads...got nuttin to dew with it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy5

“The pursuit of perfection leads to madness “. Tommy 5.” While nobody can be perfect, the pursuit of perfection leads to excellence., “Vince Lombardi. I prefer my version.

---

Definitely agree with the first quote. Chasing something that is totally subjective (i.e. it doesn't exist in a creative context) is a route to inevitable disappointment if not madness.

How about: "The creative exploration of an idea, by a continual process of identifying and using what works in relation to that idea and rejecting what doesn't, is a journey that sustains us."

Mike: "Define 'perfection'."

Here's my entry in the sweepstakes: "Good enough."   [...which of course is individual/subjective.   ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by quartertoner

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

Is the Hounding of perfection detrimental to the arts? Crafts?

While in Santa Fe, visiting many museums and shops, and craft markets, this thought came to me as I viewed all of Native arts and crafts, and antiquities. (Many pieces were of antiquity and utilitarian, as well.) Soon a discussion with my brain incurred regarding…
Does the pursuit “perfection” , or the pressure or need to achieve perfection stifle both creativity in the mind, and the creation of art. (Perhaps the crafts as well) All arts: music, painting, ceramics, jewelry making, sculpting, etc.
Is perfection necessary, or detrimental?
Brad (I may have poorly opened this potential discussion, but a lot is going through my head.)

Brad

---

Define 'perfection'.

My guess is that the direction of your question is influenced to some extent by the common equation of naturalism or photographic or realist technique with 'quality' and 'ability'? That approach does not inhibit creativity in itself but it has a singular aim i.e. that the created image should resemble as closely as possible the subject of the image. Any 'inhibition' only comes into play if a creative mind wants to explore another approach but feels pressured into meeting that singular expectation.

What many people don't realise or respect is that often the most technically adept and creative minds have mined-out the possibilities of 'realism' very early in their career. 'Standing still' creatively isn't an option; their powerful and overriding creative drive takes them in other directions to explore new possibilities that can hold their interest. But some people appear to get hot under the collar or assume they are being 'duped' by that creative exploration. 

I'm a painter myself, studied at art college from age 18-22 and spent most of my career as an illustrator and designer. Now freed from the need to meet clients expectations to make money from my work I have the freedom to produce images to satisfy  my own interest. I please myself. And that involves a constant engagement with idea and process. Most visual artists that I know share some version of the same approach, though our end results will vary enormously.

In regard to much early creative output form and function cannot be sensibly separated. Objects are imbued with meaning by their design. An obvious example is Anglo-Saxon metalwork; the stylised animal forms have symbolism that is intrinsic to the use of that object

---

Yes, Béla Fleck might an example, he perfected his Scruggs stuff, felt compelled to try something new, and took three finger single string technique to places it had never been before.

Creativity is a response.

In a session who plays with any thought of 'perfection'? If we did we'd be nervous to even get our instrument out of its case.

What we do is engage and contribute in the best way we can. And we get joy from that relaxed but focused engagement. We trust in our ability to adapt and invent in relation to circumstance and respond effectively. All creativity has that same relationship between relaxed focused engagement, response and joy.

If we have a fixed concept of what the end result of our activity 'should' be, that is likely to inhibit creativity. That's often referred to as being 'a slave to technique'.

It's an interesting question. But it depends on your definition of 'perfection'. Surely in art 'perfection' is a complete and accurate realisation of the concept that started in the artist's head. This may not necessarily require dexterity, skill or precision. To talk about accuracy in the very narrow artistic world of photorealism as perfection doesn't make much sense if you are Jackson Pollock.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AndrewD

It's an interesting question. But it depends on your definition of 'perfection'. Surely in art 'perfection' is a complete and accurate realisation of the concept that started in the artist's head. This may not necessarily require dexterity, skill or precision. To talk about accuracy in the very narrow artistic world of photorealism as perfection doesn't make much sense if you are Jackson Pollock.

---

Personally, in that sense, I have an awareness (or try to) of whether something 'has worked or not'. A lot of what we try to satisfy our vision doesn't work at all. It's a process of trial-and-error, reject and re-use. Gradually with practice we gain a better handle on what will work and what won't. We slowly build a useful 'language' of visual marks. But when adding something new we never know for sure how it will help or hinder until we try it out.

Obviously I can't speak for other people, but I would think in relation to visual art that awareness of 'has worked or not' would at least function for both 'ends' of the spectrum; the photorealist and the abstract expressionist. Despite the fact that the vision or idea that the photorealist and Jackson Pollock set out to satisfy are radically different.

'Perfection' implies the singular ideal choice. In creativity there are always multiple equally valid choices. It is only individual or cultural subjectivity that creates the illusion of there being a 'singular perfect' outcome.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rinemb

Another thought on this topic.
Live appearances or recorded music preference?
Live performance has many advantages and sensory sensation. However, with most bands you hear flaws: a sour note from a singer, a blown lead progression, a rhythm player misses a chord change, etc. That does not bother me at all. I relate to it. Its seems more "organic." Whatever that means. Brad

---

I'm assuming this is comparing the live version to a recorded version of a standard song. In this case I tend to favour the live version, because artists may often change the treatment. For example, Bruce Cockburn has often done many different versions of the same song, and you get new insights every time. (On the other hand, seeing Creedence Clearwater Revival live in '69, I felt I could have stayed at home and listened to the record - it was the same.)

However, you also had artists who used the studio as a painter uses the canvas. Brian Wilson and the Beatles did so at simultaneously, creating musical works that - at the time - could not be duplicated live. (Picture Brian Wilson making instrumental tracks without the Beach Boys.) They also worked with the limitations of the medium at the time - four track recording equipment, tape (with its accompanying hiss and loss of accuracy moving into multiple overdubs), for example. It seems that current recording has failed to produce music of such import in spite of its advanced technology (imho).

In watching the Pink Floyd “Dark Side of the Moon” doc. How did they take that to the live stage? Brad