In a recent article on two new books about Fred Astaire (NY Review of Books, “They’re the Top“), Arlene Croce closes with this summary of his extraordinary career, writing that Astaire
“. . . eluded comparisons. Whatever it was that he did, he was the only major movie star of the studio era-perhaps of any era-to have had the career his talent meant him to have, and to have had it as long as he liked.”
Ms. Croce was referring both to the length of Astaire’s career and his ability to shape and invent so much of it himself. Nice work if you can get it, indeed!
The article is terrific but this closing has been troubling me: the idea of having the career one’s talent means you to have. What does this actually imply? And what are our assumptions about talent and careers?
I tend to think of talent as neutral—an equal opportunity blessing (or curse). Because it’s all about what you DO with the talent, right? Astaire’s sister Adele, (who was the star of their early duo act and who many said was the more naturally talented), retired from the stage in 1932 to marry a Britt and live in a castle.
My point is that talent doesn’t entitle or require you to do anything. After all, plenty of people have talent, and typically in multiple areas. But if we want to make anything of that talent, we first need to do roughly the 10 years or 10,000 hours of quality work to develop it, and then we need to be smart about how we create a career.
So perhaps it’s limiting to only speak about artistic talent when there’s also the talent of creating a life and a career, negotiating a profession, and in Fred’s case, maneuvering an extremely hierarchical studio system so that he could fully realize his artistry.
Questions for the week: how has your own view of the connection between “talent” and “career” been challenged? Have you been harboring any assumptions that are getting in your way in your career?
As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts, feedback, and examples—
Fred Astaire’s Career & YOU
