Can't Stay The Same Forever...Right?

[Tequila Zaire]

Ever sat back and wondered why even the most progressive of us fight change? Chances are that if you're hanging around here you've read a Poppy Z. Brite book or short story. Her early writing was some of the best in its genre. Every year new fans discover those books and old fans lust for more. Thing is she's not all into that anymore. Her taste for vampires and horror fiction has declined and she has a new passion at the moment, all things restaurant related. Her new novels reflect that as does her journal which is always filled with some culinary adventure. This has annoyed long time fans who want her work to remain in the genre they loved her best in. One can see why since she was so damn good at horror tales of all manner and style.

Thing is as a creative soul she has moved on to something new even with her fanbase wanting to pull her back. This happens to pretty much every creative person where the work one gains attention with becomes what is most desired of them to produce. How do you handle such a situation be it as the fan or the creator. Do you as a fan expect the same only with variations or enjoy the totally new and experimental? As a creator do you take the chance of shifitng gears from what you're known or try to work with as much variety as possible in what you're known for?

[Morning Glory]

I wouldn't consider bitching about books about vampires and witches ( hm. aren't those called harry potter books?) to be "progressive".

[ladybug]

hmmmmmm. Well it is something to ponder.....I personally am not aganist change. If an author wants to try a new avenue for writting who am I to stay no. But we can't also expect every fan to like it. I am a huge fan of Poppy Z Brite books....and I can't say I've read her new stuff but she's a good writer and I'm sure they are equally as well written as her other books they just may not be what everybody expects. Anyway some writers stick with what they do best and others try to venture out and reach a diffrent crowd.
That probably just states the obvious but that's my opnion

[badkittyamy]

Well while i don't whish to hold any artist back from change as I'm one myself. It can be dissapointing when one finds an author or artist the produces stuff that your really into and is a reliable source for that material and then goes and does something different that you may have no interest in. I don't see it as not wantying the person to change but not wanting to loose that realiable source. As an example Johanna Lindsey a romance novelist used to write historical romance and has now drifted to modern day fare. While I'll still read her books i much preferred the historical settings versus the new ones that i can see everyday around me. On a different note some people have a style that stays with them no matter what they do, like the artist Luis Royo, he could do a painting of just about anything and i would love it even if he drifted from his usual fantsy/sci-fi fare.

[Tequila Zaire]

I wouldn't consider bitching about books about vampires and witches ( hm. aren't those called harry potter books?) to be "progressive".

You missed the point...it's not about bitching it's more about wanting an artist you like to continue with what they were best known for over having their work evolve and change.

[Nudemuse]

Do you as a fan expect the same only with variations or enjoy the totally new and experimental? As a creator do you take the chance of shifitng gears from what you're known or try to work with as much variety as possible in what you're known for?

Personally I get very excited when artists I really enjoy try something new. I think it's mostly because I enjoy doing that myself.

I'm all for change. I find it kind of disheartening when people get butthurt about artists changing their style or moving onto something new. Nothing is static. Stagnation to me is death.

[Morning Glory]

I can understand the sentiment. an artist does have an obligation to thier fan base, and it really pissed me off when, say, steven king in his last book wrote for an end cap, 'this is the way that I wrote it, and if you don't like it, too bad, don't bother writing to me about it, because I don't want to hear it.'
sure an artist has the right to do whatever they want with thier art, but they have to realize that once they put it out for other people to see, then they don't retain sole emotional possesion of it, and as such, they should do what they want to in a way that doesn't alienate thier fanbase.
they should say something like "I realize that some people might not like this, but I hope you'll change your mind when you realize that I did it for this reason..." instead of just, "well I allready have a million dollars, so I don't care if you don't buy my stuff anymore."

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

It is a tricky thing. Sometimes when an artist I like evolves there work or outright changes it I support them, sometimes I just can't even if I want to. The artist got you to invest yourself emotionally and care about their works so when they go in a different direction it is natural to react. It is not just because you just want them to do the same thing, you just want them to stay in the realm of your intrest.

Poppy's old fans may not share her new interests. If she had changed to something they were interested in then she probably would be seeing less pressure from them to go back to the past. That is not saying she should suit her taste to her fans. It is not just change they are opposed to, but what the change is to and if it is something they will still enjoy.

Artists should be flattered. It shows that people have an emotional investment in thier work and care about what they produce. However once they are done being flattered, they should go with the path that makes them happy. If thier passions lead them down a road thier fans will not follow they should politely smile and kiss them goodbye. I like to believe that following your passions is what makes an artist an artist, no matter how many times I am proven wrong. However if an artist decides that comercial success, or a loyal fan base, or even just the fact that they produce better work in one particular genre is reason to stay even though they want to move on, these are valid too. I don't have a solid body of work, or a fan base to force me to make that descition so the best I can do is guess what I would do.

As a fan I expect a lot of things, but I also know I won't always get them. As far as artist changing, well it really boils down to wether or not I like the change more than new vs old.

As an artist I do what makes me happy at the time, but I don't have fans to be upset by changes, so I will get back to you when I do.

[Kidthorazine]

I think an artist has the right to change and do whatever they want i mean if i liked someones older stuff and hate thier new stuff im just going to ignore the new stuff and try to get as much enjoyment out of the old stuff as i can take mettalica for example they havent put out a good album in over ten years but i still listen to thier 80s material all the time (though there are other reasons why many many people hate metalica other than their music) so yeah change can be good or bad but really when something stays the same it just gets kind of boring after awhile

[purplepixie]

if they want to change thats fine by me people get bored with making the same old thing i know i do/would do the same as an artist i agree there, but as the recipitent sometimes its hard ill give it a go but theres no guarentee you'll connect with it this time around, but too much of the same thing and the reader, listenner gets bored anyway so the artist has to take risks.

[evilassmaster]

[B]As a creator do you take the chance of shifitng gears from what you're known or try to work with as much variety as possible in what you're known for?[/I]

you create what sells until you can afford to do what you want. that's pretty much how it works...

[incog]

If an artist is just doing what they do for the label or the publisher and what they think the audience wants then that is business and not art. Artists shouldn't cry if they can't sell their art. If they don't want to do the part the fans like any more, they should get a good stock portfolio or suck it up. If the artist is trying to sell art, then it is the artist's job to please the fans but it is not the fans' job to like the art.

[TheDeathKnight]

It's hard to say...

Thinking about music, there are a lot of bands that try to change, and it sucks.
Like all the 80's metal bands that tried to have a more "modern" sound.
It all sucked.
The "progression" of many bands, tends to go from something pure, and simple,
to something complex, overproduced, and often cheesy.
But bands that keep the same sound, seem to stick around better.
Like Green Day, The Offspring, AC/DC, etc....
Every new CD sounds about the same.
Which works fine if you like their music...

There are exceptions of course.
Rob Zombie did some great stuff with White Zombie,
but then did some really interesting stuff in the techno genre,
as well as his new 70's style "groovy" music.

But most artists can't pull that off very well.
And it gets boring to do the same thing over and over.
But if you look at the bands that have been around forever,
many of them have not changed that much.
Aerosmith, etc... They did not try to get all "Nu-Metal".
They just stuck with their same old style.