3 ms·

> 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" b

by 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.
- rcme 4y ago
  I was recounting a situation as factually as possible. I don't think bias played a role. I do think, though, that your argument is based off a particular world-view: you believe anyone can achieve something if they try. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I believe that, but I think responding to an anecdote with "your anecdote is wrong because you're biased. I know this because [totally subjective world view]" is a bit weird.
  - throw14082020 4y ago
    I don't think "anyone can achieve something if they try" - primary because we don't get equal opportunity for reasons: income/wealth, culture, discrimination, education, luck, (genetics?). However, everyone starts as a beginner. Expressing view points like yours actually discourages people to strive for the best - my point is to share my perspective and make it clearer your sentiment seems to be to be the definition of "judgemental". I wouldn't achieve what I have today if I listened to the people who thought I wasn't good, or didn't have taste. Usually, these people with the strongest opinions are the one with NO knowledge, passion or interest in the field. When persuading you to drop something, they might actually be justifying why THEY chose not to do it. I think this a glass ceiling for a lot of people who don't have good role models. "Dad" - "Forget kid, you tried for 2 years to a be a programmer and you suck". Does "dad" have taste in programming? Says the dad who works in test automation and couldn't break into other jobs. Another example for music: Imagine "rock music" doesn't exist yet. Someone literally invents it and plays it, and I persuade him to give it up and work at McDonalds because he doesn't have taste. Even if one agrees with your sentiment, there are a few questions: - How long should someone keep trying? - What do you do when these taste-gods (judgemental people) have different, conflicting tastes (opinions)? - What makes someones taste "bad"? Their resourcefulness? - they haven't seen what/how it's done better? This is obvious in programming. Your code quality increases as you make mistakes, read more code, or otherwise learn. I prefer to think in terms of principles (or lack thereof).
tasuki 4y ago
> Most people aren't Vincent van Gogh. Yes of course. Most people making a living selling their art for whatever high prices are worse than van Gogh. I'd guess the people you know who "made it" are probably worse than van Gogh. Still, they made it, and he didn't, right?
splatzone 4y ago
> 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. How do you account for artistic disciplines where virtually nobody makes any money? Most poets will never earn a living wage from their work, however beautiful and well made it is, because the market just isn’t there. Does that make them failures?

by rcme 4y ago

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.

rcme 4y ago
I was recounting a situation as factually as possible. I don't think bias played a role. I do think, though, that your argument is based off a particular world-view: you believe anyone can achieve something if they try. I'm not going to comment on whether or not I believe that, but I think responding to an anecdote with "your anecdote is wrong because you're biased. I know this because [totally subjective world view]" is a bit weird.
- throw14082020 4y ago
  I don't think "anyone can achieve something if they try" - primary because we don't get equal opportunity for reasons: income/wealth, culture, discrimination, education, luck, (genetics?). However, everyone starts as a beginner. Expressing view points like yours actually discourages people to strive for the best - my point is to share my perspective and make it clearer your sentiment seems to be to be the definition of "judgemental". I wouldn't achieve what I have today if I listened to the people who thought I wasn't good, or didn't have taste. Usually, these people with the strongest opinions are the one with NO knowledge, passion or interest in the field. When persuading you to drop something, they might actually be justifying why THEY chose not to do it. I think this a glass ceiling for a lot of people who don't have good role models. "Dad" - "Forget kid, you tried for 2 years to a be a programmer and you suck". Does "dad" have taste in programming? Says the dad who works in test automation and couldn't break into other jobs. Another example for music: Imagine "rock music" doesn't exist yet. Someone literally invents it and plays it, and I persuade him to give it up and work at McDonalds because he doesn't have taste. Even if one agrees with your sentiment, there are a few questions: - How long should someone keep trying? - What do you do when these taste-gods (judgemental people) have different, conflicting tastes (opinions)? - What makes someones taste "bad"? Their resourcefulness? - they haven't seen what/how it's done better? This is obvious in programming. Your code quality increases as you make mistakes, read more code, or otherwise learn. I prefer to think in terms of principles (or lack thereof).

tasuki 4y ago

> Most people aren't Vincent van Gogh. Yes of course. Most people making a living selling their art for whatever high prices are worse than van Gogh. I'd guess the people you know who "made it" are probably worse than van Gogh. Still, they made it, and he didn't, right?

splatzone 4y ago

> 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. How do you account for artistic disciplines where virtually nobody makes any money? Most poets will never earn a living wage from their work, however beautiful and well made it is, because the market just isn’t there. Does that make them failures?