If you're remotely interested in the artistic process, you may have noticed something.
What you produce as an artist or creative, and how you progress beyond a certain state is not linear. And how and why you produce your work can often be misunderstood, and that misunderstanding can hold you back.
Ok. Before we get all highfalutin, let's start with the problem and why I'm musing about it.
A few weeks back, Dua Lipa released a new album called "Radical Optimism". Now, I'll happily put my hands up as a Lipa stan - she stands out in a sea of autotuned meh with a certain quirky, unpolished charm and some downright banging tunes. I'd heard 'Houdini' and 'Training Season' off the album and thought - I'll have that. Just really good pop music.
So, I was a little surprised by some of the reviews, many of which seemed kind of lukewarm. This hasn't stopped the album from netting the biggest opening week for a female artist in 3 years since Adele's "30", so I'm guessing the only sleep she'll be losing will be caused by nerves before she headlines Glastonbury.
But going back to the reviews, it seemed confusing. She hadn't gone far enough, she done something new but it hadn't worked, she's overthinking it etc etc. I'd even seen some online chatter getting really quite emotional about it: like her professional life was over with one album. People were disappointed, but not sure why. Again, I doubt that will be on her mind when she encores at Worthy Farm, so something must be going ok, but what gives?
We're been here before. Many times. Dua's just the latest in a long run of creatives, from music to fine art to photography to film who confuse and sometimes irritate their audience and critics by doing something a little 'new'. “We hope you like our new direction”, to quote Spinal Tap.
In Lipa's case, she was channelling the sounds of her 90's favourites on the album, but I'll let you pick any of your favourites and bet you an overplayed copy of 'The Bends' that they've had kickback from a certain area of fanbase or the media when they push the boundaries. Or don't push them enough. It’s sometimes a lose-lose situ.
I'm calling this the Progression Paradox.
Let's define it thus:
"An artist will never be happy creating the same thing repeatedly as it's not the artistic state of mind, but much of their audience is emotionally attached to previous works, and just wants more of the same. However, if the artist does not develop enough and produces very similar work, the audience is not challenged and becomes bored of the newer work as it's too similar to previous material. They feel trapped"
That - as succinctly as I can articulate it - is the Progression Paradox. Creatives and artists can become hamstrung bound by their previous works and what the audience 'wants' and never really progress their art.
Of course, some audiences do just want more of the same - ladies and gentlemen, I give you Status Quo - but there's a sweet spot for artists wanting to mitigate the paradox, and some ways around it. Hold that thought.
Before we delve further, let's zoom in a bit and talk creative process to give you an insight into the creative mind. Ooooo.
Here's what the layperson thinks the creative process of an artist looks like:
And, this is roughly speaking what it looks like in reality (everyone is different).
You get the idea. It’s messy.
The thing is, unless you're C3PO or an AI bot, you will go through at least a part of that process. It's human. It makes the art. Ironically, it's what makes other humans like what you produce. Creatives go through all that stuff to make something new, something interesting, something people will love.
Because, in a huge piece of breaking news, artists are INSECURE. We want to be respected, admired and loved. It's a central driver. So, layer over all that wibbly process with the nagging voice in the background of 'Will anyone like it if I do this, and by extension, will anyone like me anymore?', it’s not hard to see friction.
It’s natural and part of the human condition to feel this way, but it's also handbrake on true creativity.
So, zooming back out again we've seen that that basic process is - on average - rather messy for everyone involved in the production and the end audience rarely sees this. Why does this matter?
Well, due to all that ‘artistry’, the creative doesn't generally sit down with a white board and say 'I need 13 songs like the last album but ever so slightly different, so everyone still likes me'. That's for marketing types.
No, artists want to try new things. New shiny things. And that's fine, but here's what most audiences expect:
Audiences (generally) want a linear, almost evolutionary progression, but as we've seen that's not very 'human'. Artists are magpies. We suck up what we see and feel and experience, and that pops out the other end. We’re driven by new.
What actually (mostly) happens is:
Because the last bit is key. If the artist is just producing the same old, rinse and repeat they won't be happy and will just basically...stop. And eat cake.
Plus it's not authentic - the fans and critics will sniff it out and just say they are washed up, phoning it in for the cash etc. Sigh. It's the paradox in action.
But how did this come about? Well, a certain amount of blame for the existence of the paradox can be laid with critics and the media. The push me / pull you relationships of artist vs critic is obvious and that informs the narrative around a new piece of work to a wider public. I can only imagine the annoyance David Bowie used to go through with the media every time he released something completely different, just because he was following his own path. Funnily enough, he's now prized and celebrated for this in the press - Dua, take note.
The press and media, and latterly online 'tastemakers' drive sentiment around artistic works. There have been cases of perfectly good films being killed before release recently due to mad fandoms just wanting 'the old ones' remixed. But not. Or something. They're not sure. You only have to look at the madcap MCU and Star Wars fandoms to see the resulting chaos. I could spend another two or three articles about the fans trying to drive the bus in those worlds.
Secondly, we now live in a pre-packaged society. The algorithm is king. When Instagram's coding is by design only serving up 'content' that is the same as something you've previously liked or engaged with, the artistic mountain gets a little higher.
So, what are the solutions here for those involved in the creative process?
Firstly, it's not a one-size-fits-all all and depends on your medium. It also differs by fanbase and demographics so there are lots of variables. But based on past performances of successful artists overcoming the paradox, here are 3 top tips which may help. Try pasting them into your creative world and see if it works.
Tip 1.
Be you from day one.
The Bowie example is a good one. He never got pinned down, he was always experimenting and the audience grew with him and liked that about him - almost required it. He famously got a bit of flak post Spiders From Mars about not being Ziggy, but the audience grew to love his creative shapeshifting.
Being challenging and different from day one is the best option if possible. It becomes your 'brand' and you'll gain fans who like you for that very reason. It gives you the freedom to develop, plus you're being truly authentic as an artist.
Tip 2.
Be sure you flag it.
Communicating your changes, showing your influences, talking about your world view and taking your audience 'on the journey' is important. Flag something new and different is coming. Building a fanbase who buy into your artistic viewpoint on a community level is key here: Taylor Swift isn't the biggest music act in the world just due to her sick, sick beats - she's built a community of very excitable fans who want her to do new things, and really don't want the old hits again. It's a masterclass in audience management. Most of the time, they’re buying Taylor - not the music.
Tip 3.
Be stealthy and progressive - and boil the lobster.
This is probably the key one. If possible, gradually blend in the new stuff with the old. The shock of the new might be fun in the moment, but a drip-drip of change will likely keep most of that audience that originally loved what you were doing, but gain new fans - and give you satisfaction. A good example of this is U2 - the range of music from 'The Joshua Tree' to 'Zooropa' is huge stylistically, but it was released in batches and developed organically, so generally their audience (and critics) got on board, however, if they'd gone from 'With or Without You' to 'Lemon' in the space of one album, there would have been freakouts. Basically, slowly raise the water temperature so no one notices. Boil that lobster.
So, whilst the paradox truly exists, there are ways around it and means of living with it so it can become a positive rather than a negative - giving the artist a framework to grow and develop and not have the mental health trauma of dealing with harsh critics on the internet and beyond.
And of course, if - as an artist - you don’t care, well, that’s fine. Plenty of people have built brilliant careers and produced amazing art, by not giving a fig about their audience, the critics or sales.
Like I said, there are huge ranges of different mediums, audiences and situations where it doesn't come into play. But it's a recurring theme as Dua Lipa has shown and in our modern swipe, swipe, like, don't like society it's becoming even more of an issue - don't get me started on Spotify playlists for example.
But to end on a positive note, none of this is a given.
I truly believe that if something is brilliant, and an idea or execution of that idea is so amazing, original and different - and that people are primed and ready for it - then that creative idea will have its moment in the sunshine, transcending the paradox and making the audience and artists very happy indeed.
What about you? Have you seen the paradox in action? What examples do you have in your particular medium and how did the artist involved overcome it? Is it medium specific? I'd love to hear what you think, as it’s a big old thorny subject…