3 ms·
I think you’re missing a few things: 1. Many great artists were extremely prolific and created lots of mediocre work, we just forget about those. There seem to
by ryanwaggoner 9y ago
I think you’re missing a few things:
1. Many great artists were extremely prolific and created lots of mediocre work, we just forget about those. There seem to be very few perfectionists who just created a few great works, not “releasing” them until they were perfect. There are some, but they’re the exception.
2. You’re also not seeing all the many perfectionists who waited until things were perfect and then never finished at all, which is by far the biggest risk. I’d argue there are orders of magnitude more of these than perfectionists who ship perfect things.
I suspect that many of the “just get it done” people who do lots of bad or mediocre work will end up creating great things, you’re just catching them earlier in their learning / experimentation cycle. But those people will learn and adapt so much faster than the perfectionists will.
- maldusiecle 9y agoSure. You need a balance, and creating flawed works is a part of the process--I wouldn't deny that. But creating work after work, for the sake of creating, doesn't necessarily lead to better work; going through the slow process of refinement, revision, and self-criticism, is necessary. There's a saying that music teachers often repeat, which is that practice doesn't maker perfect, practice makes permanent. You have to step back and think about what you're doing, and that does mean sacrificing "productivity," at least for a while.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago>But creating work after work, for the sake of creating, doesn't necessarily lead to better work I don't see anyone suggesting this.