? recognition

martin joiners thoughts on the measurement of success:

"i have worked to please the masses and i have worked to please the underground. I have had exhibitions that made me feel whole and i have had exhibitions that made me want to give up. looking at these facts in hind sight i can say that my measure of success is the number of people who genuinely talk to me having been excited or moved by my work. on a good show it will be 4 people, on a bad show it will be 0 and 1 or 2 is average. but! beware the people who come and talk to the artist not to discuss the work and its effect, but for their own personal gain."

ignore the spelling and grammar, this was discussed and written in the pub on friday night.

recently martin exhibited a visual instillation at a local music festival. the instillation was set up between the branches of a cluster of trees with a small PA system amplifying a soundtrack to fit the visuals. he had spent months working on fantastic footage and collaborating with musicians and DJs to create a fitting soundtrack.

the installation was switched on as the sun was setting at around 10pm. it was a really great piece of video art but martin was extremely disheartened with the lack of attention the work gained. perhaps, judging by his earlier statement, he viewed the installation as a failure.

in my opinion, the installation as a work of art was a huge success, progressing with the soundtrack through a range of emotions and clearly demonstrating his talent as a film maker, however, his success at planning the location and timing of when he exhibited the work was perhaps not.

he placed himself, a fairly unknown artists in direct competition with the biggest bands of the day hence why he failed to significantly capture peoples attention. his installation was also hidden from his audience behind the trees, barely noticeable from the festival green.

when we talk about success in creativity, do we need to separate the creative act from factors such as budgeting, marketing and promotion?