7 ms·

> But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is good enough that you can tell that what you’re making is kind of a di

by rcme 4y ago

> But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is good enough that you can tell that what you’re making is kind of a disappointment to you. A lot of people never get past that phase. They quit. I find a lot of people who should quit don't. Their taste becomes compromised and they fall in love with their own work. I have high school friends who have dedicated the first 10-20 years of their adult lives to artistic pursuits. Some have succeeded and some have failed. What's interesting, to me, is that it was already clear who was going to make it in high school, but some people just didn't know when to quit. The common factor among those who failed was that they felt their work was good, i.e. it met their "taste", when a neutral observer could plainly see it wasn't very good.

quietcomments 4y ago
A related idea is George lucas's dis-satisfaction with his own work. He spent so long working on it he can see where he fell short of what he wanted to do and how it's held together with duct tape and glue. He has a low opinion of his own movies. When I know the tradeoffs I make to get the project finished, I come to similar feeling. When I'm working just for my own pleasure/hobby, sometimes any old thing will work to make me feel good about it, even when it's not great.
- failrate 4y ago
  I also have a low opinion of most of his movies and find that in reworking them, he has overworked them. My favorite remains THX-1138. Just bare bones and mostly quiet performances.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  But when you've made something, you see every flaw, every wart, and every little thing that wasn't quite what you were aiming for. Nobody else sees any of that, because nobody else knows what you were aiming for. It's the curse of creating things.
JohnFen 4y ago
I learned a long time ago that I am the worst judge of my own work, technical and artistic. So much so that if I think something I've done is great, I take that as a red flag. It's a sign that I should put it away for a while and reassess once it's grown cold.
klyrs 4y ago
You should quit posting online. It's clear that you've been doing it for a very long time, and honestly, you're not improving. You've fallen in love with your own opinions, but your "taste" is just not very good. You're never going to make it at this rate, so you should really just stop. That's not snark. Just honestly holding up a mirror for you. As for my own opinion: you're applying a utilitarian razor to hedonic pursuits. Hedonists aren't going to pay you any mind, so what's the utility of expressing this particular viewpoint? You recognize that some artistic greats died in obscurity, but your reply is that your friend is no van Gogh. From a utilitarian perspective: does the world need another van Gogh? I say no, he did his work and moved on in good time.
yCombLinks 4y ago
I agree with you most of the time, but nearly all truly original work will be generally unliked initially, because it's unfamiliar. The other problem is success often comes by struggling forward even when you don't have support.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  This checks out in my life. Much of my favorite art, especially music, is stuff I flat out disliked when I was first exposed to it. It was only after repeated exposure that I learned what was awesome about it.
waboremo 4y ago
I believe this is where the highly self-critical perspective has its roots. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of compliment baiting, but actually it seems to be a necessary. Without that intense scrutiny from yourself, how are you supposed to grow when you don't know what you did wrong? This is also partially why some creatives stop making progress even if financially successful to a degree. They get enough fans, they make enough money, so they stop looking for things to nitpick and start blindly believing. See Rob Liefeld, who notoriously has received a lot of bad feedback about his work but way after he was successful in the 90s - to the point where he's gone on record saying he doesn't know why he's so "controversial".
- camoufleur 4y ago
  But on the other hand, if at some point you become unable to respond (artistically) to your biting self-criticism, there's the danger of ceasing production entirely. Then five years go by.
  - waboremo 4y ago
    Very true. It's very difficult when your self-criticism turns into self-hatred. It's the merging of identities, you can no longer separate yourself as a person from your creations. There's this sense of clinging too tightly to your work that you never get far enough away from it to learn from it. It consumes you and leads right into that merging of identities concept.
tasuki 4y ago
I'm very surprised by all of this and understand none of it. > Some have succeeded and some have failed. By "succeeded", do you mean something like "well liked by other contemporary artists" or "made money"? > What's interesting, to me, is that it was already clear who was going to make it in high school Was it clear to you or even to most people? In what way was it clear, why? I'd expect the ones with more business acumen to "make it" as artists. > The common factor among those who failed was that they felt their work was good, i.e. it met their "taste", when a neutral observer could plainly see it wasn't very good. I don't know about neutral observers. Successful artists often make kitch that sells. Would you say Vincent van Gogh failed in his artistic pursuits? In my view there's little corellation between whether someone makes good art and their outward success.
- rcme 4y ago
  > By "succeeded", do you mean something like "well liked by other contemporary artists" or "made money"? The definition of success was "earned a living wage" but some were much more successful than that. I was thinking about this particular issue recently because a good friend, one who falls squarely into the "should have quit" category, has recently become homeless. > Was it clear to you or even to most people? In what way was it clear, why? I'd expect the ones with more business acumen to "make it" as artists. It was clear to most people. The best way I've seen the feeling described is the scene from The Sopranos when Hesh says: "There's good and there's not good ... Talent is talent ... a hit is a hit" [0]. The point is, you can recognize talent, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily articulate what makes it good. There is something tautological about taste: it's good because it's good. > I don't know about neutral observers. Successful artists often make kitch that sells. Would you say Vincent van Gogh failed in his artistic pursuits? Most people aren't Vincent van Gogh. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSIE-o2V9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSIE-o2V9g
  - throw14082020 4y ago
    Perhaps this is a just a form of bias. What you saw: - People with early success also have later success. - People failing keep failing What you objectively didn't see: "it's not worth persisting if others think you're not good". I'm sure there are loads of people who have been told by others that they won't succeed, but despite judgement from others, still succeed. IMHO, your opinion above is a manifestation of the judgement: "if I think they're not good now, they aren't ever gonna make it". Everyone starts off a beginner, and they get better with effort.

by rcme 4y ago

quietcomments 4y ago

A related idea is George lucas's dis-satisfaction with his own work. He spent so long working on it he can see where he fell short of what he wanted to do and how it's held together with duct tape and glue. He has a low opinion of his own movies. When I know the tradeoffs I make to get the project finished, I come to similar feeling. When I'm working just for my own pleasure/hobby, sometimes any old thing will work to make me feel good about it, even when it's not great.

failrate 4y ago
I also have a low opinion of most of his movies and find that in reworking them, he has overworked them. My favorite remains THX-1138. Just bare bones and mostly quiet performances.
JohnFen 4y ago
But when you've made something, you see every flaw, every wart, and every little thing that wasn't quite what you were aiming for. Nobody else sees any of that, because nobody else knows what you were aiming for. It's the curse of creating things.

JohnFen 4y ago

I learned a long time ago that I am the worst judge of my own work, technical and artistic. So much so that if I think something I've done is great, I take that as a red flag. It's a sign that I should put it away for a while and reassess once it's grown cold.

klyrs 4y ago

You should quit posting online. It's clear that you've been doing it for a very long time, and honestly, you're not improving. You've fallen in love with your own opinions, but your "taste" is just not very good. You're never going to make it at this rate, so you should really just stop. That's not snark. Just honestly holding up a mirror for you. As for my own opinion: you're applying a utilitarian razor to hedonic pursuits. Hedonists aren't going to pay you any mind, so what's the utility of expressing this particular viewpoint? You recognize that some artistic greats died in obscurity, but your reply is that your friend is no van Gogh. From a utilitarian perspective: does the world need another van Gogh? I say no, he did his work and moved on in good time.

yCombLinks 4y ago

I agree with you most of the time, but nearly all truly original work will be generally unliked initially, because it's unfamiliar. The other problem is success often comes by struggling forward even when you don't have support.

JohnFen 4y ago
This checks out in my life. Much of my favorite art, especially music, is stuff I flat out disliked when I was first exposed to it. It was only after repeated exposure that I learned what was awesome about it.

waboremo 4y ago

I believe this is where the highly self-critical perspective has its roots. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of compliment baiting, but actually it seems to be a necessary. Without that intense scrutiny from yourself, how are you supposed to grow when you don't know what you did wrong? This is also partially why some creatives stop making progress even if financially successful to a degree. They get enough fans, they make enough money, so they stop looking for things to nitpick and start blindly believing. See Rob Liefeld, who notoriously has received a lot of bad feedback about his work but way after he was successful in the 90s - to the point where he's gone on record saying he doesn't know why he's so "controversial".

camoufleur 4y ago
But on the other hand, if at some point you become unable to respond (artistically) to your biting self-criticism, there's the danger of ceasing production entirely. Then five years go by.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Very true. It's very difficult when your self-criticism turns into self-hatred. It's the merging of identities, you can no longer separate yourself as a person from your creations. There's this sense of clinging too tightly to your work that you never get far enough away from it to learn from it. It consumes you and leads right into that merging of identities concept.

tasuki 4y ago

I'm very surprised by all of this and understand none of it. > Some have succeeded and some have failed. By "succeeded", do you mean something like "well liked by other contemporary artists" or "made money"? > What's interesting, to me, is that it was already clear who was going to make it in high school Was it clear to you or even to most people? In what way was it clear, why? I'd expect the ones with more business acumen to "make it" as artists. > The common factor among those who failed was that they felt their work was good, i.e. it met their "taste", when a neutral observer could plainly see it wasn't very good. I don't know about neutral observers. Successful artists often make kitch that sells. Would you say Vincent van Gogh failed in his artistic pursuits? In my view there's little corellation between whether someone makes good art and their outward success.

rcme 4y ago
> By "succeeded", do you mean something like "well liked by other contemporary artists" or "made money"? The definition of success was "earned a living wage" but some were much more successful than that. I was thinking about this particular issue recently because a good friend, one who falls squarely into the "should have quit" category, has recently become homeless. > Was it clear to you or even to most people? In what way was it clear, why? I'd expect the ones with more business acumen to "make it" as artists. It was clear to most people. The best way I've seen the feeling described is the scene from The Sopranos when Hesh says: "There's good and there's not good ... Talent is talent ... a hit is a hit" [0]. The point is, you can recognize talent, but that doesn't mean you can necessarily articulate what makes it good. There is something tautological about taste: it's good because it's good. > I don't know about neutral observers. Successful artists often make kitch that sells. Would you say Vincent van Gogh failed in his artistic pursuits? Most people aren't Vincent van Gogh. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSIE-o2V9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sSIE-o2V9g
- throw14082020 4y ago
  Perhaps this is a just a form of bias. What you saw: - People with early success also have later success. - People failing keep failing What you objectively didn't see: "it's not worth persisting if others think you're not good". I'm sure there are loads of people who have been told by others that they won't succeed, but despite judgement from others, still succeed. IMHO, your opinion above is a manifestation of the judgement: "if I think they're not good now, they aren't ever gonna make it". Everyone starts off a beginner, and they get better with effort.