The Predictive Formulas We Love: TV, Art, Books
If predictability is boring why do the same formulas keep working?
I’m thinking mostly here about books and TV shows, but other areas of entertainment fit too. I’m a sucker for the tough loner who ambles into town and violently takes out the corrupt sheriff. It’s a common hero archetype that pops up in everything from Cowboy movies to novels. It’s the predictability of the genre we like, even if every story is a little different. Jack Reacher has a different personality than Mitch Rapp. Clint Eastwood is cool where John Wayne is imposing. Creativity exists in the personas, the stories and the fictional worlds.
The Sit Com Formula
TV is the same. In Seinfeld, Jerry will allow some quirk to keep him from dating a beautiful woman. George will lose a relationship or some benefit because he’s lazy or selfish. Elaine will become irritated with her boyfriend but forget about it when she needs him for a favor. Kramer will have a connection to something or someone that doesn’t pan out. We need some level of predictability. Change must be infrequent. It’s novelty and it only works when we understand the attributes of a persona really well.
I can’t say every sit com works like this, but they do follow a recognizable formula. This might seem lazy but it’s necessary to establish a baseline for the show. In this way we understand the characters and their motivation. Creativity depends on a baseline too. An artist needs some rules in place to begin or they won’t be able to focus. If I tell you to paint a picture of the old west in the Frederick Remington style your mind can start the sorting process. If I say paint in the Remington style and include at least one horse, you can further sort. Even better, I tell you to paint a cowboy taming a bronco while young ranch hands watch. It turns out the more detail the better.
The Painting Formula
If I told you to paint anything, you’d spend time trying to think of where to begin. But in a painting class, you need rules and an idea for what you’re aiming at. Frederick Remington’s classic prairies and big sky scenes give the artist a framework. The teacher can’t critique a good version from a bad one without some idea of what an original looks like. Students will have slightly different takes on it no doubt. This is the sweet spot for creativity. When the rules are understood, the artists transfer their ideas onto canvas. The variety of similar, but different, paintings is where personal styles comes from.
Unique styles set painters apart. Remington’s works are characterized by movement, cowboys riding fast across vast spaces, Indians chasing buffalo. David Yorke paints portraits, mostly, of cowboys, Indians and old West characters. You can see detail and emotion in his subject’s expressions. Remington is interested in types, Yorke in people. Both are Western style and easily recognizable. But even in that genre there is a difference.
The Transgressive Formula
But what of a painter who, in following the instruction to create a Remington, paints a creepy clown handing balloons to 4 year old's at a birthday party? He claims it’s his version of a Remington, but follows none of the rules of the western style. He didn’t include a cowboy, a bronco or ranch hands enjoying the show. The colors are stark and bright instead of hazy and soft. There is no relation to the cowboy life or open country. There is no hint of manliness or the wild, untamed West. But he insists it’s his version and you’ll have to accept it. It’s what he feels is right, and if you don’t see it that way you’ll be denying his truth. Besides, who are you to tell him (an accomplished painter) what a Remington is supposed to look like?
Without definition there is no meaning. We’re losing creativity in large parts of life, because we’re afraid to define. When you define, you discriminate. By saying yes to one version you’ve said no to others. But without rules and boundaries we couldn’t learn to differentiate. A Remington painting has certain characteristics and not others, but there is room within the boundaries to reinvent.
Reinvention means putting a twist on an existing medium. Whether painting, music or TV, reinvention means acknowledging the rules but adding something else to it. This is different than expecting everyone to accept your new version. It’s different than changing rules because of who you are. You don’t get to call a creepy clown with balloons a Remington style painting because you went to a better art school. Or, because you used to be a clown and know how misunderstood they are.
In this era of openness we’ve lost the ability to tell people that their ‘truth’ is objectively wrong. Rules exist in all aspects of life, so we all know where to begin. In order to create beauty, we need a familiar construct.
Conclusion
In any medium, creativity flows from a common point and spills out in every direction like a river delta. But we live in an age when people are afraid to define the most basic things. Matt Walsh’s “What is a Woman?” documentary showed this sad truth. We’re losing out on creativity as a society. It’s been arrested. The creepy clown painters are running the show and calling their work beautiful. But their effort isn’t about beauty or creativity. They don’t believe in it. They want to be heard, recognized, considered. They want control, to call the shots. Don’t’ give it to them. Truth wins out in the end. Beauty is eternal. Creativity is man’s effort to be fruitful and multiply. It’s a predictable story we can all enjoy.
“Then God saw all He had made, and indeed it was very good” (Genesis 1:31)
No comments:
Post a Comment