I'm already doing it. But I don't think of it as disruptive.
When it becomes "work", not "play", I quit for a while.
It's a process of fitting yet another facet on a tetrahedron.
Test and discovery. Multi media. Methodic variation.
There are no failed attempts, but only works in process.
There is no "try", there is only "do".
I never listen to an "expert", to learn anything.
An expert is someone who seldom gets wet.
What do you find in my inkblots ?
And, like Vincent Van Gogh,
"I'm glad I never learned how to paint."

I guess there are a few valid questions: (1) "Who is doing the evaluation of the art?" (2) "What is the artist's intention?"

If the artist's intention includes not caring how anyone evaluates the art they create, then indifference and disruption alike have no meaning.

If the artist's intention is to irritate and annoy, then indifference kills and disruption is king.

If the artist's intention is to have favorable evaluations from academia, or experienced professionals, peers, mom and dad, or any narrow group, then indifference from these evaluators kills, and disruption works or not relevant to the narrow group's tastes.

If the artist's intention is to earn a paycheck with the works created, then indifference by the evaluators kills, and disruption works or not relevant to the public's at-large tastes.

I can think of several examples of Disruption: (a) a P.T.Barnum advertising tool that keeps an artist on the radar of those whom they are trying to irritate and annoy or from whom they can gain a favorable evaluation, or (b) a way of creating that becomes popular regardless of the artist's intention, or (c) an irritant like a mosquito that refuses to accept indifference as an evaluation.

Art is communication, I was once told, and if true, then we will always have the eloquent and the inarticulate among us.

Hi Robert,
I've been experiencing both the benefits and repercussions of producing disruptive art for nearly a decade:
http://bit.ly/GgBLW

and using innovative ways to display it: http://gigapan.com/gigapans/99795/

For me, the word "disruption" (incl. adj. disruptive etc.) is negative. It implies that innovation is a undesirable disturbance, a destructive element, distainful of past accomplishment. I cannot see any useful purpose in using it to define anything that denotes progress, development or change for a sound reason (to improve conditions, make a new (art) statement, make life easier, stimulate discussion ......).
Today's letter is unfortunately disruptive, because it forces readers to ask (themselves) questions that are at best unnecessary and at worst unanswerable. Using a definition by Clayton M.C. is thus falling in with his misguided vocabulary. Has Clayton got a massive chip on his shoulder? Did his invention of the square wheel not take off?
And more to the point: Is everything that came after cave art disruptive? Is cooking disruptive - and eating even more so? Is taking that morning shower using aroma therapeutical essences disruptive? Do some people (presumably including Clayton) believe that disruption is the engine of creativity?

Faith- Disruption is the engine that explodes boring, safe, palatable to the masses, dull-witted, annoyingly bland, gawd-awful, gagging, cloying, sticky, tired, tedius, nasty, over-played, heard-it-too-many-times, number-one-on-the-charts, brainwashing, mind-numbing, dumming-down, commercial, redundant, acceptable, makes-me-want-to-throw-up crap.

Or in other words- NORMAL.

Being an opera diva where all you do is perform the same tired songs over and over because that's all anybody wants to hear, you wouldn't understand the power of innovation that pushes everybody's buttons and makes timid folk run like hell.

And I played a cello in an orchestra for many of my early years, so I know what that's like. If I never hear eina-clina-nacht-music (bad spelling) again I'll be just fine. On the same note- if I never see another christmas tree again- I'll be even better! Or another political ad for president...

I am a disruptive force. It took me a long time to accept it and an even longer time to fully appreciate it, but now I revel in it.

Thanks again- Robert!

Why do people get so worked up over what might be passing fancies? The history of art by name artists is relatively short, and it doesn’t take too long for the cream to rise above the merely sensational. The question is not whether work is art. Duchamp said that when an artist spits it’s art. The question is whether it’s any good. Fine art can be innovative or work well done within existing traditions. Also, as someone said, there is a place for canaries as well as eagles in the world of art.

I understand the concept of something new and exciting or disruptive. However when the objective is disruption, shock and controversy is this really “fine art” or is the disruption a factor of the “art of manipulation”.

Robert, I do tend to agree with you on this one. I'm always running stories through my head when I work. It's not something that I do to be different, it's something I always have done. My work, especially my assemblages, fall into the "disruption" realm. It's a little hard to explain, but what I don't do, is go looking for the most outrageous thing I can think of. I just build things I like to look at and believe me my work is not everyone's cup of tea but I know that and do it anyway.

I think innovation has its place in art and it is something that must be tried to challenge our muses to create something new and exciting. Something that challenges us may add to our repertoire. Perhaps it will lead a painter to develop his own distinctive style. As artists we are evolving until we find our own satisfaction. It boosts our morale.

As an historian I totally agree with the disruption concept (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution). If you try to depend on your art for a part of your income it is double difficult. Unless you have some big guy, gallery/museum behind you it is nearly impossible. PEOPLE WANT NICE AND COMFORTABLE ART!!!!! Yes, exceptions are out there but few and far between.

This dilemma has tortured me for years. I wanted to be an artist. All I can say is, I am not an artist, only an innovative craftsman.

I am going to sound a bit selfish and say I just have to paint for me first.

Years ago, I had a conversation with Louis Bassi Siegriest, who was born in 1899, and lived well into the 1990's. His active painting career spanned almost 70 years. It was probably in 1975, when I asked Lou what he thought about the art scene, and in particular, I made a reference to a recent exhibit at MOMA, in San Francisco, that we had both visited.

He reply was immediate. It was something like this: "I think that one day, they are going to drive a big truck up to that museum, put all of that crap in that truck, and then they are going to drive out on the bridge and throw it all into the Bay!"

As I remember, we were talking specifically about a Minimalist show wherein an artist had painted a huge canvass with a single color and got it into a major museum. I do think Lou would say the same thing about about a shark in formaldehyde or a twenty foot tall pink plastic cartoon poodle.

What he really was commenting on was just how desperate artists had become trying to do the next big thing. To be noticed and recognized as cutting edge. Perhaps, to sell paintings in New York. He was also saying that time would tell. And, I think he suggested an important point.

Art is the one thing that is truly one's own. It is about you and those paint tubes. If one has ulterior motives -- those motives other than to please and surprise one's own self -- one has missed the point of the game. The world can only supply hoop-la, headlines, and in rare cases financial reward.

Realism is coming back. Harley Brown's book, Eternal Truths for Every Artist, talks about making one's art 'relate-able' and is a must read for those who value looking for new techniques/styles, etc, perhaps.

"There is sky enough for every vision."
~Follows Bear (One of my most valued mentors.)

Disruption for the sake of art, or for the sake of selling art or even getting noticed, seems to me to invalidate what we as artists are here to do, namely communicate our vision, whatever it might be, in what ever way we can. If that way, turns out to be disruptive, then I say great, go for it, if it's not, then so what, it is the communication of the vision that is important.

The Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, "disrupted" the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Thank you for the new way to look at my art. I try to make it to perfect and now you have me looking at it differently.

Thank you for emailing me, you keep my spirits up, i have been drawing from the figure, at SVA, and i have been drawing at home. I truly miss my husband, the Artist Ellsworth Ausby, and my Dad who was 93 years old who passed this year, but i truly feel their spirits helping me to keep working, my husband always told me he was going to make an artist out of me. Somebody told me that I was his Muse.

I just received your beautiful book that contains over a thousand of your previous Twice-Weekly Letters. I'm astounded at the insights that pour from every page. I know that I will learn and benefit much from it and enjoy reading and re-reading it in the days ahead. When we discussed how the principles you often discuss regarding painting seem to apply to the writing process as well, I didn't realize that, while I'm not a painter, you certainly are a writer and an excellent one.

Some books come into our hands and are read and passed along or traded...This one however is special and will be a coveted resident in my library for all time. Thank you for these gifts; of course, for the beautiful book itself and the insights and wisdom so artfully expressed in its pages.

I had an Art Gallery, closed it a year ago to fight cancer, l m winning at this point. But it gave me an opportunity to see how many other artists organized their work. One of my favorite artists David Tanner wrote on the backs of his works. Why, what and how, and any special meaning, such as the tea cups in the still life belonged to my grand mother. Or this forest was painted when l was in Russia and the temperature was unbelievable. I found it very helpful when talking to clients about his work. I have to believe that new owners found meaning and value in the messages as well. It certainly helped in cataloging for the gallery. Oh, and thank you for my twice a week letters. While l was in the hospital for 6 months, you will never know how much they helped.

If your work is even very mildly disruptive, as in realistic with a slightly different focus or perspective that makes your work something no one else is doing, just try to find a gallery/curator who will take a chance on it. It is like "OMG no one else is doing that. We can't hang it here our clients might not understand it". The fact you can sell it yourself because people really like it counts for nothing. Who you know, who knows you and what pigeon hole do your fit in rules the day in most commercial and many public galleries. Artists are often disruptors the art business people are conservative thinkers. Strange reversal from the electronics world, eh?

Bruce: You do have massive chip on your shoulder! Why knock opera? Or were you just having a go at me? Opera was the first multimedia art form and has survived a whole lot of "disruptions".
It is "normal" for most people to want to be familiar with their surroundings and anything else that's important to them.
A performing (solo) artist - vocal or instrumental - might have the choice of recreating or merely repeating what has gone before, but will chose the former if he or she wants to achieve anything. I should point out that years of repetition have gone into perfecting the skills a musician has and must uphold. Even the lowliest orchestra musician would be jobless if the chore of practicing were neglected.
Many singers join (settle for singing in) choruses, where the mentality is sometimes that of a second-rate orchestra player, but certainly not always. I've known many chorus singers who put heart and soul into what they do, though the creative scope is limited. That also applies to orchestra players. The secret is to believe in what you do, whatever it is. Once that belief goes, there's no point in continuing in that direction (though some have to for economic reasons), as you recognized yourself. But whether what you do now is an improvement, I cannot judge, and would not want to have to.
I assure you that singing even one beautiful note is a totally creative process requiring endless skill and experience. Opera (or whatever music is being performed) is the vehicle for voice, just as the canvas, paints, etc are the painter's vehicle.
Scathing judgment of one art form does not make you better at another one. Playing the cello in an orchestra does admittedly have its limitations, but if you had been good enough, maybe you could have transcended that and become a soloist. I can assure you that there is a huge difference between sitting in a row with others doing exactly the same as you are doing and standing on a stage as a leading soloist. It is really absurd to compare the two.
That said, if you think your mission in life is to be disruptive in the sense you use, that's your choice.
I don't think you'll find many opera fans who want disruption to their preferences, however antiquated they are in the eyes of self-styled great disruptors.

I really don't like art that has to explained. Reading wall text, historical criticism, listening to docents' lectures, etc. distracts from what is there before me. I like to develop my own responsive feelings and thoughts; have my own "take away"; one of which stays with me. Years ago there was a big brouhaha over Lucas Samaras' "Piss Christ" and what I came away with, with a shrug was, "Well Jesus was always in hot water." If the metaphor comes, it comes. Sometimes when I see an abstract painting, my take away is wondering if it is preparing me to see beauty elsewhere, in something new, as seemingly trivial as patterns of drywall tape and bits of plaster, or as profound as a landscape for a dream. It is all about phenomenology, what is actually there and my response to it. I do like the quote from Follows Bear, "There is sky enough for every vision."

The last sentence of the 'Disruptive Innovation' letter might have added, " Why does Damien Hirst make so many folks upset and annoyed? " And still get such high prices for the disruptive (and innovative) art?

Is it art? I ask myself when viewing some of his work like the medicine cabinets, but I do think his butterfly works are innovative and I like to look at them. The shock aspect is what we all need but within our own feelings/styles of what shock is.

Unless you have some pieces in reserve, one of which could take the place of the one that sold, then people could see another painting that was still for sale.

This is my first "clickcback" and am happy to do so in reply to a subject, innovation, which in my trade, human evolution, has been called "variability" by Zeki. Art,and in particular painting, which I have practiced on and off throughout my life as a hobby, is a wonderful field for exercising what he considers the basis and the prime mover of the extraordinary development of life on our rare and privilledged planet. I am retired since many a year, live alone, have no one yet here, in France, to share my enthousiasm with, am considering to return to painting, and am therfore so glad to join your company. Thank you.