Man, as I said, I can't fault the guy for following his passions, but I *can* fault him for leaving some of his artistic garden unattended, and suffering as a result. As I was saying, he wants to be a creative writer too, taking sole credit for his screenplays now(as he did for his last two motion pictures), so if he wants to do that, and have it measure up to his visual skills, then he *has* to buckle down to writing *a lot*, all the time.
This is all i have been saying in one way or another, I don't like to see an artist not fulfill his potential, or do the job to the best of his ability, *when that is what they are best at*, as opposed to focusing on other endeavors that , y'know, a lot of other people could do in his absence.
At the risk of being sucked into yet another pointless argument on these boards, I've got a few things to say about this mindset.
At first, I would say that your point of view is intended to be a noble one. The arts can be an extremely important aspect of society as a whole and the human race at large, and it is important for an artist to continually hone his craft if he want's to progress in talent and skill. As an artist myself, I certainly appreciate this notion.
But that is where I start to disagree with you.
Man, as I said, I can't fault the guy for following his passions, but I *can* fault him for leaving some of his artistic garden unattended, and suffering as a result.
Sure, you can "fault him" but it would be unjust. The man should be allowed to follow his talent and desires where ever they take him, without anyone telling him he is wrong. You speak of his "artistic garden" as if focusing on something else will diminish the work he has already done. Sticking with that analogy, a gardener isn't in his garden 24/7. He comes and goes. Works on the garden some, then goes and makes dinner, or fixes his car, or builds a shed. He can go and do those things and he is still a gardener, he can still water his plants and keep the weeds out. The garden will flourish.
As I was saying, he wants to be a creative writer too, taking sole credit for his screenplays now(as he did for his last two motion pictures), so if he wants to do that, and have it measure up to his visual skills, then he *has* to buckle down to writing *a lot*, all the time.
I don't believe it is fair to assume that he isn't writing enough. Do you see him every waking hour? And what really is "enough"? That is totally dependent on the person and their skill.
I don't like to see an artist not fulfill his potential, or do the job to the best of his ability
James Cameron's potential is not for you to decide. The quality of work he or any artist does rests squarely on their shoulders. You say you hate when an artist doesn't fulfill their potential...you know what an artist hates? Not being able to express themselves the way they want. And that expression isn't always through art. It can be through many other things. In this instance, it is exploration, science and discovery (which has been linked at the hip with the Arts for centuries). I think you have this view that a true artist who is fully committed to their craft lives a solitary life, huddled in their cottage and spends their days and nights doing NOTHING but drawing or writing. That's a false and romantic view. On of the greatest ways an artist can improve themselves is to
step away; to learn new things and to explore and see the world from a different perspective, which inherently gives them inspiration and wisdom for when they return to their craft. What your opinion does is it tells Cameron (and every other artist) that this is wrong. You are trying to deny artists one of their most important assets.
*when that is what they are best at*, as opposed to focusing on other endeavors that
Considering James Cameron had a fundamental role in not only the technology behind 3D and oceanography, but also the technology and science behind getting people to the lowest point in the ocean, I'd say he does that pretty damn well, too. Again, it is not for us to decide what an artist (or anyone for that matter) does with their time, much less to tell them what they are best at. What about what makes the artist happy? I would die if I didn't have my writing, musicality, running, nerdery to go along with my art. As I said before, having the freedom to focus on other endeavors, either independent or along side their initial craft, is incredibly important for all people. I think George Matthew Allen said it best:
"People with many interests live, not only longest, but happiest."
y'know, a lot of other people could do in his absence.
True, but obviously no one has. And like so many others have pointed out, that mindset is a horrendous one to have. It is really only an excuse for lethargy and inaction, nevermind the idea that one would be destroying hopes and dreams simply because they think "someone else can do it."
Should Da Vinci not have taken time to study the human body because others were doing it as well? Should the artist Samuel Morse have focused ONLY on his art instead of inventing morse code? Should Thomas Jefferson have focused only on his musical talents?
The answer, of course, is no. It is against a person's very essence of
who they are to say "I think you're good at THIS, so you should ONLY do THIS". People NEED to be able to branch out, to follow their dreams and aspirations regardless of what they've done before and what they will do next. You trying to take that away is like taking the quill from Thomas Jefferson and telling him to get back to practicing his scales.
