One Trick Pony.

You answer the question in the asking of it. (^_^)

A "one trick pony" is like a "one hit wonder" - it produces only one outstanding performance in its entire run.

"Having a style" means that whatever makes the one trick pony's work truly outstanding will show up REPEATEDLY and CONSISTENTLY over an entire run of another pony's career.

... lifetime performance vs. single performance at a given level of quality output.

... winning one game vs. winning multiple games consistently.

... a champion vs. a fluke.

Im not really sure what my style is..Ijust paint what I like.

What I am now really getting into is loose brush strokes.

Perhaps the way I am viewing the one trick pony thing is a gimmick vs. a style.

I may be a "One Trick Pony"...

And I'm trying my damnest not to have that one trick becoming "Playing Dead"

Ronald, give an example?

Anyone seen Art School Confidential? Watch for the "Triangle" paintings in the back ground. One trick vs style.

https://youtu.be/scoVsikInZk

Plus it's just really damned funny.

Hate to get into examples much as I am not trying to step on anyones toes but here is one....Monet's use of small broken brush strokes to convey the sense of light as a style. Someone cutting away part of a mat in framing or painting on the matt as a sort of continuation of the image as a gimmick.

i think Dali had a gimmick by being a really talented surrealistic painter while other's in the movement where all about the movement.

Style eventually becomes the "one trick", when it is done over and over again. So, maybe there really is NOT a difference, except in outlook and familiarity with the style.

Kinkade was sort of a "one trick pony". The trick was "artist of light". He probably had a sort of formula. "Oh God, now I've got to do this layer in the series of umpteen layers I've got to do to get that effect. Now I've got to do the next layer. Please, let me get to the umpteenth layer, so that I can rejoice in the finished appearance. This is torture right now." [Kinkade fantasy conversation with self]

a one trick pony does something really great, but due to the lack of competition, or simply getting lucky, or copying the idea from someone else, that's as far as they go.

if you have one style, it means you can make more styles, and you can adapt or create new ideas from it.

instead of jumping into a pool of water 4" deep. i can upgrade and set the horse on fire before doing that... something new and different.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

The reason I started the thread was I was reading a book that referred to Pollack as being a one trick pony.

I'm staying away from art since it's a minefield waiting to happen.

Maybe a one trick pony could be described as someone who has one word for everything. The one trick pony therefore can't communicate if he's hungry or saw something. The listener could become bored unless he's really dedicated to that one word.

A style is not unlike a language. If its lexicon is broad enough, it can describe entirely new situations but still can be recognized as belonging to that language.

I had always thought the difference between gimmick and style was a gimmick was somewhat directionless while a style was headed somewhere and was just the result of the path already traveled.

Ron, Pollack was a one trick pony. i would love to hear an argument that would dispute that otherwise.

Good thoughts everyone!

So you would describe a one trick pony as someone who employed gimmicks, no matter how many?

Drew, depends perhaps on where his work came from and how it evolved and where it seemed to be headed.

Venessa, thatz a ranch of unique ponies.
Ron, that's not an argument.

Vanessa, that is the balancing act, where a gimmick ends and a style begins.

Lol, Drew. I was thinking gimmicks were crutches to make an otherwise weak work attract viewers, but a trick had to be a complete process.


Edit: Thanks, Ronald. It's food for thought.

Drew, yes it is.

"Drew, depends perhaps on where his work came from and how it evolved and where it seemed to be headed."-Ronald

Pollack's work had non of that. the gimmick was the performance for the media and the canvas on the floor and the redundant and now iconic impression that it had.
it is the definition of "One Trick Pony "!

If an artist spat on a canvas simply to attract attention to themselves it could be a gimmick. If the artist spat on a canvas as a result of a philosophy and direction they were working towards then I would think of it as more of a style. The result and final act could be identical but the process would make the difference,

I had always thought the difference between gimmick and style was a gimmick was somewhat directionless while a style was headed somewhere and was just the result of the path already traveled.

I think that the gimmick is a very, very set direction, taken over and over again, PRECISELY because it always gets you to the same destination. Style is the less defined destination, but the same defined actions of traveling to get to a place somewhere similar, but not exactly the same destination that you reached before.

Gimmick is to style as hamburger is to cooking. You do almost the exact same thing to get a hamburger, but you can get numerous tasty dishes by cooking.

A gimmick sees excellence in a limited focus, whereas style sees excellence over a broader range of focus.

if an aritst spat on canvasses in the same manner every time, itz a one trick pony!
what they were thinking cannot be determined by spittle on canvas......

David K,
Actually, if one is being honest with himself, the more he learns about something, the sooner he will realize just how little he does know.

Marlene, not only is that the truest statement and you will always get my agreement, it is the safest position one can take.
;)

BTW, Drew...I was told years ago not to use the word "sorry" so freely.
"I regret that...." is far more effective.
If you say the s word, the other party might be expecting an apology, which, of course, is not forthcoming....

I always have your agreement? i luv hugh!

I know nothing. I just use the word, "know" as a practical device to indicate the degree of my previous association with an entity or process.

Language is a creative medium, where we are always creating a script for the drama of life. I call dibs on best script for a drama this year. (^_^)

Reality exists when it answers the questions/requirements posed.

Once the questions/requirements go beyond that reality a new reality must be established.

Reality, Hahahaha now there’s a concept...

My 13 year old niece sent me an email of a quote from TV show she had seen and said; - "Uncle I think you will like this":

“Reality... It’s the shared narrative we agree to believe.”

Marlene, I wholeheartedly agree because the last decade I've definitely felt that "the older I get the less I know", this is why teenagers are the only class of people that know everything.

My understanding of the word "genre" is that it has more to do with a general subject and to a lesser degree style. For example landscape painting, still life or botanical are genres, from which "style" is then incorporated under the general description. "Style" defines how the subject is rendered. Photo realism, Impressionism, Art Nouveau and Art deco are examples of specific styles, yet it is correct to refer to these styles as genres when the general subject is secondary to the topic; that is, when the style is the primary subject of discussion. When an artist is working within a particular genre that genre is not their style. The unique mannerisms of an artist are what distinguishes the artist's individual style within a general style within a genre. I find it to be either a very lofty ambition or a complete absurdity for an artist to think they are going to create a new genre, but for an artist to explore specific subject matter in the context of a general subject (still life with defective car parts or botanicals affected by herbicides) and refine their mannerisms in which to give their work a distinctly original quality is, I would think, quite a noble pursuit. But unless a substantial number of artists explore the same specific subject over a given period of time could such a sub genre ever be classified as a genre on its own terms.

I once worked in a design studio where we had an extensive CSI library chalk full of furniture and fixtures catalogs. One such furniture maker came out yearly with new lines of furniture and it seemed pretty obvious that the designers were being forced to come up with new ideas. Decorative resin cast pineapples were turning up in the strangest places, plywood substrates embellished with real gold leaf eye candy; each piece was a bizarre conglomeration of styles from Rococo to Biedermeir to Regance and anything else. It reminded me of the Dr. Suess books I read as a child, otherwise it was horrible. Hopefully no other furniture designers follow in the footsteps of that company's gimmickry, let's bow our heads in prayer that it never reaches genre status.

Similarly, a band might be under contract to record a new CD on a yearly basis consisting of ten songs, each three and a half minutes long. Sure the "one trick pony" makes money on the short haul, but the music doesn't stand the test of time. Those CDs would be classified under the ".95 cents each at Value Village" genre.

War of Roses

War of Roses, war of gods, internal, conflict you've got a blog

Bicker, bite, concede or fight over who is wrong but of course you are right

Stack them up, follow the rules they will make a mistake said the jester to the fool

Poor Mr. Baidy's role was to squeal like a pig; no matter how many Oscar's he will never shake that gig!

The Cage

This body and mind
This world and time
This desire of mine
Is all an illusion

A temporary space
For a temporary face
In a temporary place
With no real conclusion

How can it be
That I am not free
In this caged reality
Of imagined confusion

The pride and the shame
The loss and the gain
The addiction to pain
Is all a delusion

Joe Burgess 2015
jb-imagery.com

Very cool poem Joe!

Humanity sets up flights of fancy.

Some of it sticks.

Most of it does not.

I objected to the term delusion because people that are delusional are very very sick.

It is not merely a flight of fancy.

Some of the folks here sell a lot of art. Their stuff sticks somehow. Their
business plans stick.

While a teenager might think they know it all or wish to block off any debate they will surely lose, I would not bank
on the teenager's business plans generally speaking.

What I love about being an artist is it is my business succeed or fail, it is mine. If my flight of fancy that I make
money sticks, I will be very luck to do well. If not nothing ventured nothing gained. We have nothing to lose.

Was Microsoft a flight of fancy? At one stage yes.
Apple Computer, the Beatles, the Stones as well....all flights of fancy at first.
Jim Morrison a flight of terror?

Very few teenagers are equipped for such a flight.

Then again....if wishes were horses, even beggars would ride.
To me meaning many folks here work hard on their businesses and the art, I dont want to insult them to
prop myself up. They are working at it, not beggars.

Drew since some flights of fancy do make into becoming reality, a new illusion will fly......generalizing that many people are very sick or
delusional as is your word for it, does not make any sense. Personally I dont want to generalize about lot of people on the internut.
I guess you are using a watered down laymen's definition for delusional but in a sharp tongued way.

Gain any traction in your businesses folks and more power to you. That is what many of us are here for.

Dave

David,

I love your returns on statements in this discussion! Stick with your guns.

You are on the right track. Creative art and inventive technology are intersecting as one now more than ever before. Technology meaning science and invention and creativity meaning stepping in front of everything and then surprising the world with new stuff.

don't over think it or create to impress! don't sell out or it will just be a dream to be famous! your one trick pony is great. I'll do art again when I retire! bye

Vincent,

Word, TY

Dave

Blaine,

You are prolific. Congrats on your strength.

I sold out a long time ago. In fact my selling out might even become fashionable again.

Dave

So Dave, how do you think you sold out?

Joe,
SO well said!
Bravo!

I don't believe in selling out. So I have never needed to sell out. Already there.

I make art to sell. Now I need to sell some art.

Dave

The pride and the shame
The loss and the gain
The addiction to pain
Is all a delusion

Joe,

It is too bad, I am seeing people suffer in all walks of life.

I still do not agree to call it delusion.

Dave

Joe B.,

Excellent poem.

Ronald Walker is a good teacher of art because he has this strange power and ability to open doors for artists to explore themselves in the world of art.

Vincent,

What has gotten into you? Handing out compliments left and right?

Is this court ordered? LOL....not to be taken seriously.....

Dave

Thank you everyone, in case you think these threads are a waste of time, my mom died this morning and the thread has been a welcome distraction from the whole ordeal, keep on making art, it is truly one of the most worthwhile endeavors you can do!

Ronald, these threads are Not a waste of time at all. They are sparks that ignite inspiration in many ways.

We know that your mother was a wondrous person. She created the atmosphere that somehow encouraged you to generate those uniquely special insights that you so freely share here.

Ronald,

My condolences.

Dave

I am going to close this thread now as I have sent it in an entirely different direction, thanks again.