Maybe rejection by one audience group is what impacts an artist to
pursue a different track, or to revert to a former style.

Maybe your inability to enjoy opera at age 12, or to take Led Zeppelin
seriously after 35, simply means you'll find something else to take
its place *at that time*.

But if the people who love you now are not the people you WANT loving
you, then you have a disconnect between what you are and what you want
to be — and you, the artist, have to decide which direction feels
more vital.

The idea of a new artist “bounce rate” also seems appropriate to mention. When an individual stumbles across an artist's work at a time when they are unable to appreciate the artist's work due to their own lack of experience. Or at a time when the artist is not yet good enough to be appreciated by the individual…

As a fatalist, it's easy for me to say, “whatever is supposed to happen, will happen.” But the element of chaos theory thrown into a new artist bounce rate problem is intriguing. :)

It's hard for an artist who WANTS to experiment, because if he's any
good at what he does, he'll already be “branded” in the eyes of his
audience. If he diverges too far from the tastes of his base, they
may not follow him, but if he doesn't, he may never reach his own
potential. I suspect that's when an artist has to ask himself if he's
in it to make a living or to fulfill his own desires.

And the fact that an artist sometimes has to choose between the two
ends is what's so frustrating about the whole system — we as an
audience aren't necessarily wired to forever seek out new material
like artists are wired to create it.

This is also why some artists split their time between the projects
that pay the bills and the projects that stretch their skills. And if
you're REALLY charismatic, enough of your audience will follow you off
the beaten path that even your fringe work will make money. (Tim
Burton, Johnny Depp, Jack White, Ben Stiller, etc.)

Of course, like those 4 examples, it helps if your particular brand of
“quirk” has already been absorbed into the mainstream. That's a
rarefied position that actually ENCOURAGES an artist to experiment; so
many others simply mine their own backyards.

I am really interested in exploring the thought of predictability though. You know, what you wrote about and I asked questions about in the comments that you dodged. ;)

Taking the Beastie Boys as an example, could you have predicted Paul's Botique after License to Ill? Or what about Hello Nasty after Ill Communication?

I really find it interesting that artists either typecast themselves into predictability or reinvent themselves and lose a percentage of their core fan base because of it… Which is better?

I really liked this post, and I really don't want to agree with you but I kind of do. I've noticed this especially in movies and TV (though I really liked Up In the Air) recently. Up until this past week I hadn't really heard many bands or songs that have struck a chord (pun intended with me) – but then i went to SXSW and was flooded by amazing music at every turn. Of course I was just discovering it, but it made me excited about finding new music again, and maybe that comes in the form of media or experiences that are not easily accessible. I also love the idea that the music, text, video and content that we produce will always be new for someone (like how some freshmen discover The Grateful Dead each fall).

Where I disagree with you is that I think there remains the distinct possibility that so much of the media we consume just isn't that good – and that's why we're not moved by it. The low hanging fruit is just not remarkable and it takes a bit more effort to find something that is inspiring in a traditional media format. Again, just one possibility among many.

Sorry for the long comment, and thanks for another great post.

This is why there's such a disconnect between the intellectual or
“snob” class and the general public: critics evaluate art and culture
based on years of prior experience, whereas the general public can
only evaluate “what they like” based on a fractal amount of
experience.

Critics tout artists who'll push a medium forward because the critics
themselves want to see something that surprises them. But when you've
seen 10,000 movies, it's harder to be surprised by one. When you've
only seen a few hundred, and they've all been comedies starring Adam
Sandler, EVERYTHING surprises you… and not necessarily in an
enjoyable way.

As predictable as things can be, I would argue that there is still an evolution of the individual in all forms of art. That evoluation may not always live up to our expectations, and some people may even evolve by not evolving as the world changes around them and then suddenly brings them back into fashion… but I digress.

After doing 100 of anything, a person certainly isn't the same as they were when they sat down to accomplish that thing the first time. Does the fact that you or I may not track with their evolution lessen what they're doing in some way?

I agree with Hetal; familiarity can indeed breed contempt. However, I wonder if it's possible, after knocking about in a different neighborhood for a time, for what was once familiar to seem like new again, upon return?

A further question: Is it possible for the familiar and the rewarding to coexist in the experience of media consumption, or must familiarity imply mundaneness?

And then you'll discover a new found appreciation for Hollywood movies.

But that is what it is all about I guess. Recognising patterns and once you understand them, move on. It does not mean you can not enjoy it anymore, but somehow it lost its magic.

But around the corner there is always something else that seems groundbreaking. And that might be predictable for someone else.

Anyway, great post.