
Entrepreneurship is an Art not a Job - revorad
http://steveblank.com/2011/03/31/entrepreneurship-is-an-art-not-a-job/
======
nadam
"to build early stage ventures, entrepreneurship would become a “science,” and
anyone could do it."

Just because something becomes a 'science' it does not mean that everybody can
do it. Something is a science if you use the scientific method in it: come up
with falsifiable hypotheses. (Certainly this is the case in enterpreneurship.)
But coming up with hypotheses is not automated in any of the sciences. In fact
you have disruptive ideas, 'paradigm-shifts' (see Kuhn) and all those
'creative' things in science too.

Creativity is needed to create great things in different fields.
Enterpreneurs, hackers, engineers, inventors, scientists, mathematicians,
artists: all can be creative and be in the 'flow' when building something.
Picking artists and enterpreneurs seems to be totally arbitrary for me.
(Although feeling like an artist is probably cool. (See 'hackers and
painters'.))

~~~
mindcrime
That's a really good point. And it reminds me that there is a really cool book
titled _How Mathematicians Think_ [1] that goes into much detail about how
mathematics is a creative activity and not just a mechanical process (as some
people seem to believe.)

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/How-Mathematicians-Think-
Contradiction...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Mathematicians-Think-
Contradiction-Mathematics/dp/0691127387)

------
jdp23
I'm skeptical of his perspective that there's something uniquely creative
about founders that doesn't apply to everybody. Programs that make resources
available, provide support networks, and teach skills all increase
entrepreneurship (microloans are a great example). Totally agreed that there's
an art to entrepreneurship, but the same can be said about programming,
journalism, politics, or any other kind of profession.

------
sunjain
I would like to agree with this and hope this is true. As Steve Jobs once said
he would much rather be considered as builder rather than trader. And so
building part of entrepreneurship is more like an art. As unpredictable and
challenging starting up a company is, I would like to think that it is the art
aspect of it that makes it somewhat fun as well. As difficult, unpredictable &
dangerous doing a startup may be, there must be this fun aspect of it(which is
more artistic) that makes it fulfilling. Else it will be just like another
exam(to be passed, graded to be acquired).

------
alabut
Wow, crazy timing. I caught up last night with a friend with an Angelpad
startup that asked me what my criticisms of lean were and this essay explains
the gist of it.

What we're really talking about is taste. All the main product development
methodologies skirt around the issue, whether it's lean, ux, agile, or etc.
You can gather feedback and iterate through product ideas all you want, but
it's up to you whether you have good ideas or if you're just a monkey throwing
poop on the wall to see what sticks.

------
DanielBMarkham
Wow. _Yesterday I wrote and submitted this exact same theme_.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387227>

It's very interesting how when a community reads the same material, various
people will have similar responses even though they do not coordinate with
each other. You see the same thing many times with inventions: it's not
unusual for separate inventors to invent the same thing on opposite sides of
the world without either having any idea what the other is up to.

It's a weird feeling to spend time writing an essay, thinking that you are
hitting a problem from an unique angle, then see another person who took the
same route.

Of course Steve's essay is a lot better.

I think the key thing to note is that the _atmosphere_ that we live in as
technologists -- architecture, programming languages, physics, science,
engineering, etc -- prepares us in exactly the opposite way required for us to
be successful entrepreneurs. Our world is full of information and culture on
how to be good performers, not creators. Even when we do our best to share
with each other what works or doesn't work, we do it in terms of performance
-- exactly the opposite paradigm from what's needed.

Took me a long, long time to figure that out, and I still have a hard time
with it. I wished somebody would have helped me with this when I was in my
twenties.

EDIT: I want to hit this one more time, just to make sure I got it.

Let's assume we were all great music composers, like Beethoven. We set up an
online community and folks drop by to share and talk.

To put it in Steve's terms, the things on the online community would all be
about _performing_ , not _creating_. They'd have to be. That's the nature of
how text works. We'd be talking about the various kinds of pianos, oddball
musical scales and their effects on voice harmonization, how to deal with
agents, controversies and scandals inside the music industry, or what our work
habits are like -- exactly the kinds of article you see on HN everyday.

 _But none of that shit is important_ \-- or maybe it's better to say that
_all_ of it is important, but only in how hundreds or thousands of these
little pieces comes together to make a greater whole that's uniquely assembled
by each entrepreneur, not in themselves. It's all details and shop-talk.
People dropping by who also want to be great composers can easily drift into
the idea that somehow these ancillary things are critical parts of what it
takes to be a great artist. "John Williams was great. Did you see that
sequencing tool he is using?" subtly becomes "If you want to write great
music, you'll need a great sequencing tool" which then becomes "Top 20
sequencing tools to make your music shine" Then a hundred people read this and
drift off and spend 3 months learning sequencing tools instead of learning how
to write tunes that people love. This can be very harmful.

We're out in tools, gossip, and implementation-land when the key problem is
learning how to create something people want. It's a creation problem, not an
implementation problem. Nobody who knows what they are doing cares what kind
of stool Beethoven sat on everyday while he was writing his Ninth Symphony.
And those who do care either realize how microscopically insignificant it is,
or are sadly ignorant of anything to do with composing.

This. This is why HN can only ever have very limited value to a person who
wants their own startup. It's not the people, or the Arc program structure, or
the even the topics that get submitted and upvoted. _It's that you don't teach
creativity by sitting around talking and reading about it_. In almost every
art, it's a mentor-apprentice, tell-share-do-observe-create-influence
paradigm, not passive absorption of technical details and performance-related
tips. This is one of the reasons the cofounder concept is so powerful, it's
the reason that incubators help more than do-it-yourself-guys, it's the reason
larger communities like SV end up spawning off so many crazily-unique ideas.

~~~
BrandonM
This is perhaps the most insightful comment I've ever read on Hacker News.

------
karanr
"But it’s more likely that until we truly understand how to teach creativity,
their numbers are limited."

I don't believe creativity can be taught. Not now, not ever. Although everyone
can be creative to an extent, you must have the drive to spend time and effort
thinking about what's in front of you, and how to creatively change that. Most
people are interested in being participants, and not willing to put the extra
mental effort to go beyond this. Some however enjoy the creative process more
so than participating.

~~~
ojbyrne
I tend to think of "creativity" as something like the physical attribute of
"quickness" which is really disguised strength. If you have a solid
intellectual background, good work ethic, and drive, then you've laid the
basis for creativity. Doesn't mean it will actually manifest itself, but
you've increased the likelihood.

~~~
karanr
I disagree. Solid intellectual background, good work ethic have nothing to do
with creativity, nor do they lay a "basis" for it. From personal experience, I
have know so many who have those attributes, but are just participants in the
system. Sure, they excel, and are successful people, but devoid of creativity
entirely. In fact you can argue, people who are successful inside the system
because they have the attributes you mentioned, are the least motivated to
challenge the status quo. They have much to lose.

~~~
ojbyrne
And I disagree too. If you look at actual "creative" people throughout history
they generally mastered what existed before them before making a leap beyond.
Picasso was skilled at traditional art and sculpture before he created cubism.
Shakespeare wrote sonnets, comedies, and histories (at that time, these were
accepted, even tired genres) and was very much a "participant in the system"
before transcending that same system. Leonardo Da Vinci was an apprentice to
another artist during his early career.

We live in an era where ego gratification makes far too many people think
they're creative when really they don't even have the tools developed to be
creative.

------
idlewords
The simple idea that there can be a large creative component to activities
like programming or starting a business seems to invariably send this
community into a full-on circle jerk.

Yes, it feels great, but please consider whether it is a worthwhile habit to
cultivate.

------
swombat
Steve makes good points, but I can't agree with his conclusion. I believe that
there are many other ways than education to encourage artists. Opportunity and
necessity, for example, will by themselves lead to a great increase in the
number of entreprenartists, without any changes in education methods.

My full thoughts here: <http://swombat.com/2011/3/31/entrepreneurship-art>

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I'm not ready to go the full distance to Steve's conclusion either. I love
Steve's work, but he has a tendency to over-generalize, systematize, and the
regurgitate whatever he's been absorbing. It's a great habit, and it helps
tremendously to advance the conversation along, but it can lead folks to
believe there's a lot more surety in his conclusions than there actually is.
Great structure and descriptions are a key part of finding a solution, but
they are not a solution in themselves.

If we agree that art plays a huge role here, then the next logical question
is: _how do you teach people to be a good artist?_

I'm not a guy who believes you are just "born with it". I think a vast amount
of stuff can be ingrained into just about anybody. But I don't think this
general problem has been adequately solved by anybody in any artistic field,
must less entrepreneurship.

The cool thing is that it gives us a lot of places and communities to turn to
in order to look at how various inculcation systems work.

------
NY_USA_Hacker
If Steve Blank could teach a really effective one semester course on how to be
a successful entrepreneur, then anyone who could do well in his course could
become rich and we'd have a lot more rich people. But having many more rich
people encounters some problems with the size of the whole pie so that I have
to doubt that Blank's course can do much! :-)!!

His current statement that entrepreneurship is an "art" seems to be an escape
to the land where we don't understand artists and don't get blamed for not
understanding!

Yes, suppose we accept that, except for luck, some 'creativity' is needed for
successful entrepreneurship. Well, my view is that the first 20-30 years of
life are not very good for teaching creativity!

I finally learned how to be creative in math, but the lessons were not taught
or even hinted at in school! Here's a nutshell recipe:

First have to guess the result (theorem) and then have to guess at a good way
to confirm (prove) it. The key is some good guessing. Here are five points
about such guessing:

1\. Guessing Machine.

So, have a 'guessing machine', a bit wild and unconstrained! To find some
really big, new ideas, let the guessing machine be wild!

2\. Intuitive Models.

Have some 'intuitive models'. Why just intuitive? Because typically don't know
enough yet to make them solid.

2.1 Connections.

Sometimes two apparently quite different parts of math seem to have a glimmer
of something in common, and maybe they do and the glimmer is from something
deep and powerful. Broadly a relatively powerful approach in math is to get to
the same result two different ways, thus, showing something in common and
getting some new connections.

2.2 Patterns.

Sometimes work by patterns and analogies: E.g., once I had a result that said
that, along with some other properties, I could have a function differentiable
k times for any positive integer k. So, then by a 'pattern', a guess would be
that I could still have those other properties and a function infinitely
differentiable. Yup, a few hours later, I did.

3\. Filtering.

3.1 Constraints. Use what already know is true and is false to constrain or
filter guesses. Be a little flexible and not too literal on the filtering:
Maybe some small changes would make something true now false or something
false now true.

3.2 Intuitive Models.

The intuitive models can be used to filter the results from the guessing
machine. So, maybe guess that A is true. Then roughly, just intuitively, it
looks like maybe B and C are true. But then D would have to be true, but we
know that D is false. So, if want to invest more time in this guess, then
check more carefully that B and C have to follow; otherwise save time for now
and guess that A is false.

4\. Special Cases.

Typically do understand some special cases, maybe just some very simple,
contrived special cases. With these can do some more filtering.

5\. Proofs.

So, when have what appears to be a theorem, do some more guessing about how to
prove it. Commonly the guessing that led to the theorem will also help in
guessing how to prove it. In the guesses, be sure actually to make some
crucial use of all the hypotheses or just drop any unused hypotheses. If you
are fairly sure that all the hypotheses are needed, then in looking for a
proof realize that need a proof that actually uses all the hypotheses.

Such means, and likely more, worked for me in being 'creative' in math. Your
mileage may vary! Adapt, revise, extend, and improve as suits your work!

For business in Web 2.0 and 'consumer Internet', sure, need to give the users
something they like enough to become "engaged" (F. Wilson).

One way to do that is to play on 'art' as in the common definition "the
communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion". Look at some
examples of art and see how well this definition fits. More generally, get
some understanding of what gets or might get people "engaged". To check ideas,
look at examples of where people do get engaged.

For guesses at what might get a lot of people engaged, look at someone you
know best of all, yourself. Or, for something less general and simpler, start
with a problem you would like to have solved.

For how to be as 'creative' as in, say,

Notre Dame

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts5t_5HeECE>

Meditation

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zmgfBKuIrk>

Lohengrin

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E>

Tristan und Isolde

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktwPGCR7Yw>

Parsifal

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn3JV3GHRE&NR=1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn3JV3GHRE&NR=1)

clearly that's doable but more difficult!

For more, no doubt the central key is that mechanism we do not know how to
explain, human intelligence. Typically that work is done between two ears in a
quiet room considering all that know and can guess, sometimes considers
'causes', and has enough freedom to find some really good, new ideas but
enough discipline not to go off into nonsense land.

