I do feel (most) boomers need to get out of the way in regard to leadership, but that is not the same as old people needing to stop being creative. If they are physically able and have ideas, go for it. Having come to a creative field (music composition) at an “older” age I have found that the field is skewed to the young, with competitions for those “emerging” (new to the field) only for those under a certain age. This leaves out people coming to this later. I know many composers who are writing interesting, excellent music into their 80s and 90s. Criticizing age across the board is not a good idea. Leadership, yes, move on. Creativity? Keep making until you die!
Never said they have to stop being creative. And you can definitely still pursue your art, *especially* if you've never been recognized for it and it's a personal project you do not for attention. But in the cases like NFLX tasking Seinfeld, it seems like such a poor use of resources just to trade on his name vs invest in something new and different.
You literally wrote “it’s unlikely you’ll outshine your previous peaks.” If that is not a discouragement of continuing to create in old age, I don’t know what is. Yes, you were talking about people who have a large corpus of work, but there is always a risk in creating that you won’t top a previous accomplishment. And that is not the point of creativity, either. And being creative in making your own projects does not preclude mentoring. I think Quincy Jones was a perfect example of that. Sure, criticize people for not mentoring and not letting younger people take the lead, but calling things “tired” as a consequence of their age is pretty ageist.
In the cases mentioned above their work clearly suffered. It's not ageism, it's reality. Particularly true when it's the case of large industry investment and using mass distribution channels. These guys have all had their shot and then some, and at this point we're held back culturally and spiritually to see some guys who should be mentoring others gripping the spotlight with their last breath. It's no different in business or politics IMO. We all have to suffer through the results. If one is painting or composing on their own & distributing through their own social channels etc *please* continue to do that! Not what we're talking about, I'm sorry if the distinction wasn't clear enough, I felt it implied by the examples. And honestly, the best art is probably done by people quietly, for their whole lives, and we never even see it. Maybe we would if the culture didn't simply recycle the same stars and ideas until death.
You do understand that Clint Eastwood is making some of his best work at age 95, right? You do understand that Larry David is still funny even though he is significantly older than Seinfeld, right? You understand that Grandma Moses was old when she started painting, right? And she got famous as an old person. I do not understand your argument. Old people do not have to go "create quietly' within their own "social channels" and essentially be ignored because they are old. The issue is quality, not age. And if someone can create something of quality in their old age, let them, even if it is through "mass distribution channels." Why should someone of a great age be denied that if their work is good? I don't think Seinfeld is funny, never have. Never watched an entire episode of his show. But that never had anything to do with age. I went to go see BEAT last month, and it was an amazing show. I was inspired by these guys in their late 70s and early 80s who could play just as well as ever, if not better, and are still coming up with new ideas. As a writer, I would think you might want to reconsider how you would like to be treated when you are old. Because what you are asking of them is what you are asking for yourself. Do you want to disappear into obscurity someday just because you are old?
I hope to reach a point basically all I'm doing is platforming others with whatever attention I've compounded, I already do this now by casting unknown talent in ads in my day job vs people who are already known. In my experience, they not only perform just as well, they're always less pretentious than famous people and are easier to work with. My personality may be biased to finding new talent and giving people a shot. I think this is lost in big media who even when they do sign on new creatives have a bias in certain 'proven' formulas. I think a lot of this involves just a very different way we view the world.
Interesting Adam, I see why there's fear that young people's progression is being blocked. But the truth is, global fertility is dropping to replacement levels and we are living longer, I heard Prof Sarah Harper of Oxford University speaking on BBC radio recently, and she was clear - we all need to change our attitudes to age for economies to survive. There is massive structural change in the age pyramid coming in the next 20 years. There will be less people replacing us to fund our pensions, so we will need to work longer and we will need to change our attitudes to age in the workplace. The issue of why young or new 'creatives' aren't trusted to carry mainstream TV or projects is definitely a great question, which I would love to know the answer to...but I'm not convinced it's because 80 year old actors and politician's aren't 'moving' out of the way. It's just a simple risk factor isn't it?
Risk is part of the business, it's bleak that trad industries won't bet on new talent. And the issue you describe is for sure due in part society's bias of continuing to bail out the old at the cost of the new. We could write several posts on this subject alone.
They're not adults. That's the mistake you make. There was a survey completed in the US where a large cohort of people were asked if they could choose an age to live at what age would that be. The majority said teenager. This describes where we are in western culture, consumed with a teenage worldview of:
- What others think (likes etc.)
- Relationships and Sex
- Instant gratification
- Competition and Sports
- Blaming the older generation
Anthropologists and psychologists have researched and written at length as to what we are missing and the understanding that Indigenous Peoples have rituals to take people through the stages of life and not leave them as adolescents. It's boring at this point to hear the same rhetoric as if there were no other models possible other than the western adolescent pseudoculture.
I wouldn't see this as ageism, as you might even start doing it before a certain age. Or you might never quit. It's up to you of course. I just want people to view this as high status behavior.
This! A whole new mountain to climb. Also your experience in one area means the next you'll approach in a very interesting way. In modernity people are *so afraid* of the notion of death/rebirth, but once you embrace this life gets way more fun too.
Respectfully, there is a moral difference between an artist creating uncomfortable art in their 80s and a politician or business executive still clinging to power, wealth, and cultural relevance with their literal last breaths. The former is honorable and the latter is pathetic. This is an effective essay that caused pause to consider and respond.
I agree but to the extent big media and industry refuses to invest in new talent and continues propping up the same stars it does also intersect with power. Cultural power is real too. It doesn't mean they should stop creating independent projects, of course. I honestly think it's really more interesting when someone who has run the course of one art form tries another. What was it Quinten Tarantino said, something like every filmmaker should do just 10 movies in their life in totality.
This sounds whiney. Yes, others will sometimes try to block your creativity. Why? There are so many reasons people choose what they choose. Are some icons really taking up space you or others could fill? The focus cannot be on them or even an idea of a cultural paradigm. The “problem” isn’t the generations ahead or those behind.
Yes. Agree. Our country needs checks and balances. It’s how we can reasons things out together. And most of all, as new checks and balances are formed and power changes hands, we must must must practice humility.
Not whiney, the value system of our society is actually quite broken here. I'm happy to talk about it even if others won't. In a lot of ways we're gaslit not to discuss certain topics, not accept biological realities, just endorse whatever powers that be are doing without question. I think this one's pretty clear to see and history books will write about this era where we're basically doing whatever the opposite of tree planting is. This is reflected in everything, from housing & economic policy to cultural choices.
Adam, you fail to understand that the apogee of accomplishment is defined by the very failures you point out; you cannot know what the high point was until you can no longer reach or exceed your previous best effort. An acquisitive person cannot *know* when they're done until that fail enough so that they, themselves, can no longer deny that they're done.
You see this all the time in professional athletics; it's a good model because it's much clearer, quicker, and obvious than in normal workaday reality. E.g., when Troy Polamalu peaked and began his professional descent, it was obvious right away that something was missing. After a solid season of this, there was no denying it. See Aaron Rodgers for a current example.
Every person who tries hard to advance himself and his family confronts this eventually, just as you will one day.
So you are saying a certain personality type lacks some of the self/meta-awareness to understand their place in the world and the culture in a given time. IDK if I buy this, although I may be putting artists on a pedestal as I sort of think if you are able to create something timeless and interesting that necessitates an innate ability to understand the world well, and that would by definition include yourself. But I could be wrong in this thinking.
You know, considering more this topic and this discussion, I think our differences can be explained by my conviction that the best, most sound and stable society is created when each individual unit *tries* to achieve his/her maximum level of life satisfaction that's available to them while working *within* legal constraints. If we remove the constraints then it's anarchy, and that's OK if you know what you're getting into, I suppose, but I don't want to have to carry a gun everywhere, so...
It may be that you have a much more holistic view of society--"it takes a village"...
Adam, I'm overstating what your position might be just for clarity--it's more on the collective effort side than I am.
Let me make it clear that I was raised an FDR Demo household who believed in unions and the like, I protested the war in Vietnam while in college and favored bussing and AA. I was probably more of a collectivist than you'll ever be, and here's the really important part: my current worldview is an *evolved* one. Naturally I can be wrong, and I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to bet my life's accomplishments that my evolved current view is closer to human nature than my belief in the brotherhood of man ever was. And since I have to work daily with *reality*, I come at problems with that in mind.
So much truth here. I’m at the early years of this transition and recently read “from strength to strength” which is focused on helping high achievers make this transition. More need to do it for exactly the reasons you put forth
I think we must be careful not to confuse our creative imperative and motivation with pure egoism/narcissism. We should continue to be inspired and build. But championing a world where no one lifts anyone else up, continues thinking they are the center of the universe and only thing that matters is a reason why everything is broken. Moves us to continued atomization, where the end state might be you alone in a white room plugged into an AI-powered VR unit rendering your perfected, ideal reality.
Adam, the point is that creative imperative and motivation are driven to *excellence* by egoism/narcissism.
Don't let these terms, with their negative connotations and current cultural baggage, get in the way. You could sub in "personal pride of accomplishment", always bearing in mind that when we sue "personal" to qualify any motivation, it's rooted in narcissism. We each do it for *ourselves*, the only exception I see that you might rely on is that we might do it for family, but never, ever count on it being done for the community at large. That's optional,and again, also for one's one satisfaction.
I mean, basically your thesis today sounds like a younger man who's eager to advance to positions currently filled by older competitors. Nothing wrong in that if you don't try to also grab the moral high ground while competing.
Basically, they owe you and everyone else *nothing*. No mentoring, no sharing unless you can get them to *want* to do it. You're trying guilt. I suggest you try something else with a little sugar on it.
I actually get to make the decisions here and specifically cast unknown people in my ads (not only are they frequently better, they work harder for less $ and are less pretentious - I also get the joy of helping help them make a name for themselves). I don't think anyone owes me anything. If anything I think I owe something to the world by being successful in my field. I think the culture is in a bad place and we've lost all sense of values, including understanding and accepting that people def reach a point they're past their prime, or simply there's other talent we may consider. It's all part of the baby boomer pathology, which is inculcated into everything including financial and housing policy. A culture constantly bailing out the old that won't invest in the new is destined for lots of pain.
"If anything I think I owe something to the world by being successful in my field."
Quite simply, I feel no such obligations to society (read: "undifferentiated strangers"), only to my family and a very close and highly vetted cadre of long-time friends. I guess "tribal" would fit here.
And as a formerly sensitive young adult, I've found that I can minimize pain in life by basically ignoring the needs of society (undifferentiated strangers)--which are never-ended and over which I have little to no control-- in favor of addressing the needs of my "tribe"--and in this sphere I can effect *a lot* of positive change, and have for many years.
This provides me with a lot of personal satisfaction, which is the opium that palliates life.
But, different strokes, I suppose.
Great discussion! I am learning a lot. Thanks for being rational!
I do feel (most) boomers need to get out of the way in regard to leadership, but that is not the same as old people needing to stop being creative. If they are physically able and have ideas, go for it. Having come to a creative field (music composition) at an “older” age I have found that the field is skewed to the young, with competitions for those “emerging” (new to the field) only for those under a certain age. This leaves out people coming to this later. I know many composers who are writing interesting, excellent music into their 80s and 90s. Criticizing age across the board is not a good idea. Leadership, yes, move on. Creativity? Keep making until you die!
Never said they have to stop being creative. And you can definitely still pursue your art, *especially* if you've never been recognized for it and it's a personal project you do not for attention. But in the cases like NFLX tasking Seinfeld, it seems like such a poor use of resources just to trade on his name vs invest in something new and different.
You literally wrote “it’s unlikely you’ll outshine your previous peaks.” If that is not a discouragement of continuing to create in old age, I don’t know what is. Yes, you were talking about people who have a large corpus of work, but there is always a risk in creating that you won’t top a previous accomplishment. And that is not the point of creativity, either. And being creative in making your own projects does not preclude mentoring. I think Quincy Jones was a perfect example of that. Sure, criticize people for not mentoring and not letting younger people take the lead, but calling things “tired” as a consequence of their age is pretty ageist.
In the cases mentioned above their work clearly suffered. It's not ageism, it's reality. Particularly true when it's the case of large industry investment and using mass distribution channels. These guys have all had their shot and then some, and at this point we're held back culturally and spiritually to see some guys who should be mentoring others gripping the spotlight with their last breath. It's no different in business or politics IMO. We all have to suffer through the results. If one is painting or composing on their own & distributing through their own social channels etc *please* continue to do that! Not what we're talking about, I'm sorry if the distinction wasn't clear enough, I felt it implied by the examples. And honestly, the best art is probably done by people quietly, for their whole lives, and we never even see it. Maybe we would if the culture didn't simply recycle the same stars and ideas until death.
You do understand that Clint Eastwood is making some of his best work at age 95, right? You do understand that Larry David is still funny even though he is significantly older than Seinfeld, right? You understand that Grandma Moses was old when she started painting, right? And she got famous as an old person. I do not understand your argument. Old people do not have to go "create quietly' within their own "social channels" and essentially be ignored because they are old. The issue is quality, not age. And if someone can create something of quality in their old age, let them, even if it is through "mass distribution channels." Why should someone of a great age be denied that if their work is good? I don't think Seinfeld is funny, never have. Never watched an entire episode of his show. But that never had anything to do with age. I went to go see BEAT last month, and it was an amazing show. I was inspired by these guys in their late 70s and early 80s who could play just as well as ever, if not better, and are still coming up with new ideas. As a writer, I would think you might want to reconsider how you would like to be treated when you are old. Because what you are asking of them is what you are asking for yourself. Do you want to disappear into obscurity someday just because you are old?
I hope to reach a point basically all I'm doing is platforming others with whatever attention I've compounded, I already do this now by casting unknown talent in ads in my day job vs people who are already known. In my experience, they not only perform just as well, they're always less pretentious than famous people and are easier to work with. My personality may be biased to finding new talent and giving people a shot. I think this is lost in big media who even when they do sign on new creatives have a bias in certain 'proven' formulas. I think a lot of this involves just a very different way we view the world.
Interesting Adam, I see why there's fear that young people's progression is being blocked. But the truth is, global fertility is dropping to replacement levels and we are living longer, I heard Prof Sarah Harper of Oxford University speaking on BBC radio recently, and she was clear - we all need to change our attitudes to age for economies to survive. There is massive structural change in the age pyramid coming in the next 20 years. There will be less people replacing us to fund our pensions, so we will need to work longer and we will need to change our attitudes to age in the workplace. The issue of why young or new 'creatives' aren't trusted to carry mainstream TV or projects is definitely a great question, which I would love to know the answer to...but I'm not convinced it's because 80 year old actors and politician's aren't 'moving' out of the way. It's just a simple risk factor isn't it?
Risk is part of the business, it's bleak that trad industries won't bet on new talent. And the issue you describe is for sure due in part society's bias of continuing to bail out the old at the cost of the new. We could write several posts on this subject alone.
"Even the adults don't want to grow up."
They're not adults. That's the mistake you make. There was a survey completed in the US where a large cohort of people were asked if they could choose an age to live at what age would that be. The majority said teenager. This describes where we are in western culture, consumed with a teenage worldview of:
- What others think (likes etc.)
- Relationships and Sex
- Instant gratification
- Competition and Sports
- Blaming the older generation
Anthropologists and psychologists have researched and written at length as to what we are missing and the understanding that Indigenous Peoples have rituals to take people through the stages of life and not leave them as adolescents. It's boring at this point to hear the same rhetoric as if there were no other models possible other than the western adolescent pseudoculture.
Great point
Thank you Adam. I did want to reflect on it more but I ended up just typing it as I saw it, so it is a tad of a rushed reply.
Agree ... the move from success to significance is not easy and in a society that is ageist it makes the transition only harder.
I wouldn't see this as ageism, as you might even start doing it before a certain age. Or you might never quit. It's up to you of course. I just want people to view this as high status behavior.
Nice idea, although I wouldn't really go that far. You don't really know how these "old people" are doing and if they have it easy as it seems.
But, yes, mentoring and decentralisation of your legacy is an awesome message
Who is saying it's easy? It's never 'easy' that's not really the point here. Glad we agree on mentoring and legacy!
Going out on top (of that thing) doesn’t mean you can’t do another.
This! A whole new mountain to climb. Also your experience in one area means the next you'll approach in a very interesting way. In modernity people are *so afraid* of the notion of death/rebirth, but once you embrace this life gets way more fun too.
The next career/project/partnership - just have to take the step.
Or they start a podcast
Love this, it's what Jim does which I referenced in the post. Give back, platform others, tell your story
Respectfully, there is a moral difference between an artist creating uncomfortable art in their 80s and a politician or business executive still clinging to power, wealth, and cultural relevance with their literal last breaths. The former is honorable and the latter is pathetic. This is an effective essay that caused pause to consider and respond.
I agree but to the extent big media and industry refuses to invest in new talent and continues propping up the same stars it does also intersect with power. Cultural power is real too. It doesn't mean they should stop creating independent projects, of course. I honestly think it's really more interesting when someone who has run the course of one art form tries another. What was it Quinten Tarantino said, something like every filmmaker should do just 10 movies in their life in totality.
Adam, you might enjoy reading this book my podcast co-host recently published. Lots of this kind of discussion.
https://www.tuckerdspress.com/product-page/the-last-decade-of-cinema
will check out appreciate the link
Reminds me of the phrase, “Pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered.”
Yes, and it's all optional and unnecessary slaughtering! No one is forcing them to do this.
This sounds whiney. Yes, others will sometimes try to block your creativity. Why? There are so many reasons people choose what they choose. Are some icons really taking up space you or others could fill? The focus cannot be on them or even an idea of a cultural paradigm. The “problem” isn’t the generations ahead or those behind.
Yes. Agree. Our country needs checks and balances. It’s how we can reasons things out together. And most of all, as new checks and balances are formed and power changes hands, we must must must practice humility.
Not whiney, the value system of our society is actually quite broken here. I'm happy to talk about it even if others won't. In a lot of ways we're gaslit not to discuss certain topics, not accept biological realities, just endorse whatever powers that be are doing without question. I think this one's pretty clear to see and history books will write about this era where we're basically doing whatever the opposite of tree planting is. This is reflected in everything, from housing & economic policy to cultural choices.
Adam, you fail to understand that the apogee of accomplishment is defined by the very failures you point out; you cannot know what the high point was until you can no longer reach or exceed your previous best effort. An acquisitive person cannot *know* when they're done until that fail enough so that they, themselves, can no longer deny that they're done.
You see this all the time in professional athletics; it's a good model because it's much clearer, quicker, and obvious than in normal workaday reality. E.g., when Troy Polamalu peaked and began his professional descent, it was obvious right away that something was missing. After a solid season of this, there was no denying it. See Aaron Rodgers for a current example.
Every person who tries hard to advance himself and his family confronts this eventually, just as you will one day.
So you are saying a certain personality type lacks some of the self/meta-awareness to understand their place in the world and the culture in a given time. IDK if I buy this, although I may be putting artists on a pedestal as I sort of think if you are able to create something timeless and interesting that necessitates an innate ability to understand the world well, and that would by definition include yourself. But I could be wrong in this thinking.
Fair enough, Adam.
You know, considering more this topic and this discussion, I think our differences can be explained by my conviction that the best, most sound and stable society is created when each individual unit *tries* to achieve his/her maximum level of life satisfaction that's available to them while working *within* legal constraints. If we remove the constraints then it's anarchy, and that's OK if you know what you're getting into, I suppose, but I don't want to have to carry a gun everywhere, so...
It may be that you have a much more holistic view of society--"it takes a village"...
Adam, I'm overstating what your position might be just for clarity--it's more on the collective effort side than I am.
Let me make it clear that I was raised an FDR Demo household who believed in unions and the like, I protested the war in Vietnam while in college and favored bussing and AA. I was probably more of a collectivist than you'll ever be, and here's the really important part: my current worldview is an *evolved* one. Naturally I can be wrong, and I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to bet my life's accomplishments that my evolved current view is closer to human nature than my belief in the brotherhood of man ever was. And since I have to work daily with *reality*, I come at problems with that in mind.
This is not cynicism; it's realism.
Oh, well! :^) <\lecture>
So much truth here. I’m at the early years of this transition and recently read “from strength to strength” which is focused on helping high achievers make this transition. More need to do it for exactly the reasons you put forth
"People are so terrified of irrelevance, of fading away, they cling to what they know..." May we all have the courage to let go.
Read "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night".
This is the essence of creative humanity we're talking about; it's what inspires excellence.
I think it's good to propose new theses like yours, but it's fairly obvious that it fails to understand the nature of masculine personal motivation.
I think we must be careful not to confuse our creative imperative and motivation with pure egoism/narcissism. We should continue to be inspired and build. But championing a world where no one lifts anyone else up, continues thinking they are the center of the universe and only thing that matters is a reason why everything is broken. Moves us to continued atomization, where the end state might be you alone in a white room plugged into an AI-powered VR unit rendering your perfected, ideal reality.
Adam, the point is that creative imperative and motivation are driven to *excellence* by egoism/narcissism.
Don't let these terms, with their negative connotations and current cultural baggage, get in the way. You could sub in "personal pride of accomplishment", always bearing in mind that when we sue "personal" to qualify any motivation, it's rooted in narcissism. We each do it for *ourselves*, the only exception I see that you might rely on is that we might do it for family, but never, ever count on it being done for the community at large. That's optional,and again, also for one's one satisfaction.
I mean, basically your thesis today sounds like a younger man who's eager to advance to positions currently filled by older competitors. Nothing wrong in that if you don't try to also grab the moral high ground while competing.
Basically, they owe you and everyone else *nothing*. No mentoring, no sharing unless you can get them to *want* to do it. You're trying guilt. I suggest you try something else with a little sugar on it.
I actually get to make the decisions here and specifically cast unknown people in my ads (not only are they frequently better, they work harder for less $ and are less pretentious - I also get the joy of helping help them make a name for themselves). I don't think anyone owes me anything. If anything I think I owe something to the world by being successful in my field. I think the culture is in a bad place and we've lost all sense of values, including understanding and accepting that people def reach a point they're past their prime, or simply there's other talent we may consider. It's all part of the baby boomer pathology, which is inculcated into everything including financial and housing policy. A culture constantly bailing out the old that won't invest in the new is destined for lots of pain.
Understood.
Here's where we are far, far apart:
"If anything I think I owe something to the world by being successful in my field."
Quite simply, I feel no such obligations to society (read: "undifferentiated strangers"), only to my family and a very close and highly vetted cadre of long-time friends. I guess "tribal" would fit here.
And as a formerly sensitive young adult, I've found that I can minimize pain in life by basically ignoring the needs of society (undifferentiated strangers)--which are never-ended and over which I have little to no control-- in favor of addressing the needs of my "tribe"--and in this sphere I can effect *a lot* of positive change, and have for many years.
This provides me with a lot of personal satisfaction, which is the opium that palliates life.
But, different strokes, I suppose.
Great discussion! I am learning a lot. Thanks for being rational!
Yeah you too I appreciate the thoughts as well.