NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross offers a fabulous rebroadcast of a 1992 interview with guitarist/inventor Les Paul, following his death last week. Paul was a prolific jazz guitarist, and quietly invented or innovated many of the techniques and devices that define contemporary music (the hardbody guitar, multitrack recording, a full range of audio modification techniques).
What’s extraordinary about the interview — beyond the obvious energy, passion, and persistence in the face of so many physical challenges — is his motivation for his inventions. He created all of these extraordinary tools and techniques not to serve a market, make a fortune, or even change the face of music. Rather, he was compelled to invent solutions to get the sound he wanted in the way he wanted it.
A great example of a visionary artist without a particular public agenda, who happens to change the world.
A modern day Da Vinci? Well, maybe not but certainly a great example for why the artistic process is just as, or even more valuable than the product. I will keep this example in my pocket for times when I am talking to people about why support for the arts must include support for artists. Thanks for posting this.
Andrew, why is the presence or lack of a public agenda material to Les Paul’s accomplishments? Do you see this lack of public agenda as somehow elevating Les Paul beyond others who do have a public agenda? Could you explain what you mean by public agenda.
Neill,
Thanks for your clarifying question. I’ll agree that my comment was a bit cryptic, and I didn’t intend to suggest relative merit to either having or not having a public agenda as an artist or arts organization. Here’s the backstory: I’ve been doing a bunch of projects and research around ‘public impact’ and ‘public purpose’ for arts organizations lately. And while it’s really useful to explore the MANY public benefits of artistic expression and connection (especially when you’re drawing on public money), it’s also easy to conclude that every artists and arts organization should work according to a stated and strategic public agenda. In other words, that intent creates impact.
Some artists and organizations do that brilliantly, and should be celebrated. But I have to keep reminding myself (and the policy makers I work with) that some artists and organizations do NOT expend significant energy on a deliberate public agenda. Rather, they are compelled to solve a creative problem, approach an aesthetic vision, wrestle with the constraints of technology, time, gravity, resources, or other such limits. In that process, they often create extraordinary public impact and public benefit. Such was the story of Les Paul.
So, no, I didn’t intend to elevate Les Paul above artists who do have a public agenda. Sorry that I gave that impression. Rather, I was reminding myself, out loud, that agenda and intent are variables in the larger calculus, not constants. And that any policy, practice, strategy, or evaluation of cultural enterprise shouldn’t categorically prescribe intent when they really want impact.
Hope that clarifies. If not, I’m happy to give it another shot.