An artist creates a Thing.
It turns out to be a popular Thing.
The artist is acclaimed and praised for this Thing.
The artist follows up with another Thing.
This second Thing is also acclaimed and praised, but because it is somewhat similar to the first Thing, the artist now has a trademark: various different kinds of this Thing.
So the artist stays in the same neighborhood, creatively, turning that artist’s byline into a promise for more of that Thing.
Then the artist departs from formula.
People who loved the work before now are perturbed. How dare the artist depart from this Thing?
Okay, they say, you can do it this once, but go back to the Thing!
The artist goes back to the Thing, but eventually departs again. And again.
People say, I miss when the Artist was doing Thing!
Over a decade or more of further work, that artist completely reinvents his/her body of work, showing a level of versatility that no one even suspected.
Nothing the artist has done is a betrayal of Thing.
But a lot of people completely ignore all the recent work and snort that the artist was only good at doing variations of Thing.
Others say, I still wish the artist will go back to doing Thing full time.
The artist continues to refuse to be confined to the box.
Now you have people saying, the only good thing that artist ever did was Thing! Pressed on this point, they then say, oh, I stopped consuming the artist’s work with Thing Plus Two. No, I’m not familiar with anything the artist produced in the last thirty years. But I happen to know! Thing was the only good thing!
The people who say this imagine themselves experts. Bigger experts than those who have stayed with the artist, through thick and then, liking some Things, hating others. Their knowledge of the one Thing is superior, in their view, to the knowledge others have of multiple Things.
Any discussion of the artist’s new work, they will intrude to talk some more about The First Thing.
This is common.
And this is why we can’t have Nice Things.