3 ms·
I enjoyed this article, and this is a topic that I'd love to read more about, read other perspectives - if you have any suggestions. But I don't think there's
by stephth 14y ago
I enjoyed this article, and this is a topic that I'd love to read more about, read other perspectives - if you have any suggestions.
But I don't think there's one process that's better that the other - outputting new works frequently vs working many years on the same work - and this article felt quite biased against the latter. It never mentions how a work can remarkably stand out in beautiful ways when the author takes the time to let his work grow and evolve during development, even if that means giving into to obsession to details. Think of Kubrick's 2001 or The Shining, Valve's Portal 2. To turn like they did, these works could not have been rushed out. Or think about how the quality of Stephen King's Dark Tower arguably declined once the author decided to accelerate the writing of the last volumes (V, VI and VII) (on the side of that argument, Stephen King has recently stated in interviews that he's thinking about rewriting major parts of those last volumes, like removing himself as a character).
There are obviously many examples of amazing works that were created in a rush of luck and intuition, and of incredibly long processes that turned into failures. But some of the best works in history took years, and grew older alongside their artists before being released. In the end it's about the artist finding the right process for his work and career, whether or not that meets this article's definition of "prolific". Even if the audience has to wait a decade for a work, if the process was the right for that work, it will still be the most beneficial call for the audience.
- kiba 14y agoDwarffortress. That game doesn't feel like the most polished thing ever, but the details are sure staggering. Right now, the author is working on making the larger world come alive. Eventually, you will be able to laid siege, plunders towns, and intercept opposing armies yourself.
- jseliger 14y agoOne other questions is how the artist fits into (or doesn't) the dominant artistic paradigms of his or her time. For example, in his book Old Masters and Young Geniuses (see http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/thinking-about-the-process-of-being-an-artist-and-a-writer-lessons-from-david-galensons-old-masters-and-young-geniuses/ http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/thinking-about-the-... for much more), Galenson describes how young conceptual innovators often do their best work early and have only one or two important works that create a radically new paradigm for their art. Other artists learn through making many works, being prolific, and gradually accumulating knowledge that ultimately leads them to produce great works—and often do so later in their careers. These two ideas obviously aren't binaries, but they provide useful ways to think about art and being an artist.