

Your taste is why your work disappoints you. - entangld
http://kottke.org/11/04/your-taste-is-why-your-own-work-disappoints-you
Ira Glass talking about the process of honing your craft.
======
schrototo
Don't forget to watch the other parts of the interview as well, it's great
stuff. Part two especially should also resonate with everyone who does
something creative .

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loxJ3FtCJJA> (building blocks of stories;
very well illustrated!)

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6x7lOIsPE> (kill your darlings, failure
is part of success, you don't want to be making mediocre stuff)

[3] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY> (taste & disappointment)

[4] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCJFAGEuJM> (common pitfalls of making
stories; be yourself; what's interesting isn't only your take of things, it's
seeing you interact with other people)

edit: fixed the links

~~~
Splines
OT, but I've been listening to TLA for a few years now, and I had created a
completely different image of Ira Glass in my mind. Watching these videos is
like seeing a stranger talking with Ira Glass's voice.

~~~
VMG
you might be interested in the interview with him on the WTF podcast

------
DamagedProperty
The one valuable key I have found to becoming better at your craft is to
improve your identity. I have been studying accelerated learning for many,
many years. How we identify with what we are doing has a dramatic impact on
our performance and ability to learn. Identity is one of those strong beliefs
we hold about ourselves and our capabilities.

Writing code is the best and only way to improve. But as everyone is aware
this does not guarantee you become a better programmer. Over time I think
everyone does to some extent but some become better quicker. What is the
difference? I believe it is what we believe we can do.

I have taught many people how to play guitar. I always start by teaching them
the basics and looking for my opportunity to convince them that they are now a
‘guitarist’. Because they will never continue and fall in love with it until
they can find some way to identify with it.

~~~
Isamu
Any good books or pointers on accelerated learning you would like to share?

~~~
DamagedProperty
I have found a lot of books on the subject but most rightly titled books
seemed to have only tips and tricks. Some are really good but don't really hit
the sweet spot for me.

This book is good but and example of what I am talking about.
[http://www.amazon.com/Accelerated-Learning-21st-Century-
Mast...](http://www.amazon.com/Accelerated-Learning-21st-Century-Master-
Mind/dp/0440507790/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931295&sr=1-2-spell)

But the ones I have had the most success with are the Neuro Linguistic
Programming books by John Grinder and Richard Bandler.

[http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Magic-Vol-Language-
Therapy/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Magic-Vol-Language-
Therapy/dp/0831400447/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-6)
[http://www.amazon.com/Frogs-into-Princes-Linguistic-
Programm...](http://www.amazon.com/Frogs-into-Princes-Linguistic-
Programming/dp/B000H2REWS/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-10)
[http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Hypnotic-Techniques-Milton-
Er...](http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Hypnotic-Techniques-Milton-
Erickson/dp/1555520537/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-16)
[http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Guide-Sub-
Modalities/dp/09169...](http://www.amazon.com/Insiders-Guide-Sub-
Modalities/dp/0916990222/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931060&sr=8-15)
[http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down-
Prerequisites/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Turtles-All-Way-Down-
Prerequisites/dp/1555520227/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931181&sr=8-2)

Also this is great for learning how to digest technical and college books.

[http://www.amazon.com/What-Smart-Students-Know-
Learning/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/What-Smart-Students-Know-
Learning/dp/0517880857/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303931228&sr=8-1)

These are NOT affiliate links

~~~
DamagedProperty
I looked through my library and found a couple more that are really great for
accelerated learning.

Sleep thinking: [http://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Thinking-Revolutionary-
Problems-...](http://www.amazon.com/Sleep-Thinking-Revolutionary-Problems-
Creativity/dp/1580624456/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304419302&sr=8-1)

The Einstien Factor by Win Wenger and Richard Poe. (Couldn't find the book on
Amazon)

------
yason
This is very true. I think that a good taste is always ahead of one's works,
almost by definition. I've never heard of an artist or a programmer who could
just do exactly whatever they envisioned instead of a feeble attempt only.

(I bet Leonardo was never too happy with the smile of that little Mona Lisa
either and probably couldn't really put his finger on what it was that he
really wanted but couldn't just do.)

The counterpoint is that in order to live at least a relatively enjoyable life
you will have to learn to cut yourself some slack. You have to have somebody,
preferably yourself, to tell you that _"This is enough effort; this is good
enough for now and given your skills you've done well._ " Not that you could
ever give up on your taste but I think that the acceptance of "I'm not good
enough yet for what I want but that's okay because I haven't given up either"
is what will eventually propel you to eventually accomplish even better works.

~~~
drzaiusapelord
I'm both an artist and a programmer and not great at either, but this is a
common issue. I'd also recommend this essay:
<http://gapingvoid.com/2004/07/25/how-to-be-creative>

All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying
to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or
different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot.

There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't
have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner
noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but
in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an
"overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly
difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for
the off-chance that you might get good at something.

~~~
yason
Thanks for the link, it's excellent. I've never seen that many things that are
true on the same page.

------
SandB0x
Contrast with _why:

"when you don't create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than
ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create."

~~~
bambax
This is not the same meaning of the word "taste".

The quote from _why uses "taste[s]" as a substitute for "likes / dislikes"
whereas Ira Glass talks about "taste" (singular) as "the ability to appreciate
greatness".

------
yesbabyyes
I'm 33 and I've been programming for almost 20 years. Rarely does my work not
disappoint me still. It is getting better, though.

~~~
cageface
Things like Github only make this that much worse. In the old days I only saw
my colleagues' code, most of which was nothing special.

~~~
indy
Isn't it great to be disappointed when comparing your code against others? It
gives you a set of higher standards to aim for and is preferrable to being the
best coder from the small pool of people you work with

~~~
yesbabyyes
I hear what cageface is saying but you are right, and it's definitely a better
mindset. I much rather have lots of good code to learn from and get inspired
by, than only reading disposable code from uninspired corporate coders.

------
Geee
Good artists copy, great artists steal. To develop good taste you need to
observe lots of other, better work and try to understand what makes them so.
Taste isn't something you inherently have.

~~~
bluekeybox
> observe lots of others

100% correct. Speaking from first-hand knowledge: artists who develop their
career in isolation from other artists generally produce either terrible or
subpar work. There are exceptions but they are getting rarer as our culture
becomes more global. In other words, globalization of culture sets
expectations. Something similar may apply to the economy.

~~~
tehjones
Many of the greatest painters starter their careers reproducing the works of
old masters.

~~~
lloeki
Well that's true for any field I guess... _"If I have seen a little further it
is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"_ said Newton. Interestingly enough,
he himself took inspiration from various sources all the way from John of
Salisbury for that particular quote, somehow making that famous quote self-
referencing.

------
kadavy
As someone who is "finally" starting to find success in my early 30's, this is
something I think of a lot.

Think of all of the famous people you know of, who are doing great work right
now. Now look at how old some of them are.

Steve Carrell is 48 years old. Jon Stewart is 48. Louis C.K. is 44.

All of them are great at what they do, but how old were they when they finally
reached the top of their professions? Sure, you can think of small gigs they
had in the decades before, but just think of how long they had to work at what
they did to get where they are. I always wonder how often they came close to
quitting. (I remember hearing an interesting story about this from Louis C.K.,
but I don't remember the details)

To do great creative work, you not only have to love it enough to work that
hard at it, yes, you have to have incredible taste to always be finding that
one little thing that you can improve - for decades and decades.

------
xutopia
I'm an amateur chef and I cook for friends and family all the time. They're
often happier than I am about the meal because I know it could be way better.

------
agilo
Probably off topic, but the deadline point struck me most about the video. I'm
a firm believer in self-directed learning, but I must admit that one of the
benefits of having an overarching system that pushes you to deliver on time,
such as school or a boss, can also have its benefits in setting the deadlines
for you (and enforcing them). It takes a great amount of self-discipline to
stick to one's own deadlines.

~~~
bajsejohannes
I recently discovered <http://www.stickk.com> . I haven't tried it, but my
understanding is that you set a goal, a deadline, some stakes and a referee.
If you don't finish in time, you have to pay the price (stakes) that you have
set. This can for example be donating money to an organization you don't like.

------
ErrantX
Yes, absolutely true. Anecdotally the first couple of novels I wrote
(unpublished) disgusted me. I know the stories I want to tell and all of the
things that make books in my genre (fantasy and historical fiction) suck. But
I found myself reading the semi-finished work and finding the same plot holes
and problems.

#2 was better than #1. And #3 is looking better and better as it goes on (I
enjoy reading it, which is a good start :)).

Same with programming. I have scratty bits of PHP code from a couple of years
ago that make me cringe. Today I am writing the same functionality - it still
sucks, but not quite as much as it used to.

------
Reclix
I loved this, thanks. The hardest part about being a creative / writer, or
even entrepreneur is the high expectations set by those you admire, and the
impossibility of fully imagining the amount of time it will take you to reach
their level.

I don't know how true it is, or whether others agree, but I have always felt
(except with work of exceptional brilliance), that I have the power (given
enough work) to create work on the same level of anything I can see and
appreciate - the key, I think is knowing why I appreciate it.

------
zcid
I think that is one of the most insightful and meaningful (to me) interviews
I've heard in a while. When he plays his old piece and completely lambasts it,
I felt amazingly inspired that, maybe, in 10 years I will be able to look back
and say the same about my own work. But at the same time be extremely happy
about it because I'll know that I'm well beyond where I am used to be.

Never give up.

------
mattgreenrocks
It's not just the work; I've come to accept (on some level) that I need to
keep moving when working on projects and not fixate on a single detail to get
it exactly right. But there's also the nagging feeling that programming is
just, well, not all that deep creatively.

I can't shake it, and its rather pernicious.

------
clintavo
Not sure I completely agree with this idea. I used to own an art gallery and
saw many artists, early in their careers, who actually THOUGHT they were
great, but who were actually terrible. Some of those same artists later DID
become great and produced masterful works (and were embarrassed by their early
works). For some people I think it's possible for taste to improve as they
walk along their creative journey.

Another example: I wasn't frustrated with my code when I first started because
I didn't even have the taste to know it was bad.

------
entangld
It definitely spoke to the writer in me and also the entrepreneur. Sometimes I
get this ache inside and when I'm unable to express myself. Even now I can't
say it right.

Finally after a lot of hard work people finally understand what took me a long
time to translate. I always imagine how the creator of Mad Men or any site
that works beautifully must have really beaten themselves up to get that good.

------
tuhin
Something similar I had written a year back:
<http://tuhinkumar.com/journal/good-taste/>

------
dev_Gabriel
I think most of the time I'm not happy with what I do 'cause I know I could do
a lot better and I know what I need to do to achieve that. But seems like I
just can't quit my bad behaviors and do what needs to be done.

------
mannicken
My work always disappoints me because there's the idealistic image in my head
and I could never get it right on paper, no matter how hard I try just like I
could never draw a perfect circle.

------
nicetryguy
Perfectionism pays off, but its a savings bond, not a pennystock

------
gattaca
This is simply brilliant. Thanks for posting this and making my day. Onward..

------
domgreen1
i can relate to this comment, I have been programming for only a few years but
seem to get constantly frustrated with where I currently am compared to where
I want to be.

------
rkon
He makes an interesting point. I'd like to hear him address the other side of
it too though: What about people who have good taste but won't actually be
capable of producing work that meets their high standards even after trying
for a decade?

He says after 8 years he was still an awful reporter, but I don't think good
taste necessarily guaranteed he'd become a good one. Seems like a lot of
people could head pretty far down the wrong path if they just take his word.

~~~
vamsee
I think the other part that makes you good is actually liking the process.
When you don't care what the outcome is, the journey becomes the reward. And
that can lead to some pretty awesome creative work :)

~~~
rkon
Think about all the struggling artistic types out there though. Ask any
unknown rock group who they like and they'll probably name the same legendary
bands like Zeppelin, Floyd, etc., but most of them will never make it
anywhere.

Tons of people have 'good taste', but I think there are certain careers where
it's not a valid indicator of future success... not even close. Telling a
musician "you have good taste, so you'll do well if you just keep trying"
would be horrible advice 99% of the time. Hell, I wouldn't even say good taste
is a prerequisite for music, because people always think the innovators are
completely insane until they become the next big thing.

~~~
waterhouse
Methinks "good taste" refers not to the set of things you decide are good or
bad, but to the perception and analysis you use to make such decisions.

It's best if you're able to explain yourself. The consummate person-with-good-
taste-in-music should be able to listen to Led Zeppelin and say, "Ah, this is
good, they do XYZ really well, those are the things that make this song good";
and it should be _right_ , which means that if you took Led Zeppelin and had
them do X not as well, and played the result to members of the general public,
they would react much less enthusiastically than they would to the original
song.

Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the really
useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall; XYZ are
good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you can
tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix _its_
XYZ.

It's sometimes possible to use your taste to be successful even if you're not
able to explain yourself with words. If you're carefully listening to your
project (or using whatever sense is appropriate; imagine a man closing his
eyes and calmly giving his entire attention to the sensation), and you just
_feel_ that a certain thing isn't the way you like it and needs to be changed
in a certain way, and you make the change, and repeat the process until you're
satisfied... If you have very good taste, then these _things_ that you felt
needed fixing were precisely the things that the consummate person-with-good-
taste would perceive and describe, and your product should now be really good
(at least, much better than before).

If you have that kind of taste, and if you have control over your project (or
if the people working with you simply trust your decisions), then you can get
success without ever developing the ability to articulate just _why_ a
particular thing is good or bad. On the other hand, it is probably possible to
have excellent taste in most regards but to just be flat-out wrong about a
couple of important things. To guard against this possibility, it is useful to
be able to explain yourself and to compare your words with others's.

You can probably start to learn to articulate your tastes by experiencing
several things that are similar, but you definitely like some of them more
than the others, and thinking about what makes them different and what might
explain your preference. You'll have to be careful--not to attribute like or
dislike to the wrong things--but you will probably make progress sooner or
later.

See also "Blink", by Malcolm Gladwell.

~~~
BrandonM
_> Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the
really useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall;
XYZ are good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you
can tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix
its XYZ._

This is a very good point, and I've seen it as my own musical tastes have
developed. I have several friends who are in bands, and while they appreciate
praise and fan adoration, they seem to be doubly appreciate when I say
something like, "Your solos are a little too clean; turn up the distortion a
bit," or "The lead is being drowned out by the harmonies."

By offering very direct constructive criticism, you are signaling to the
artist that you appreciate their work enough to listen _that_ closely in order
to help them make it even better. On several occasions I've taken to
conspicuously listening to a single band member, and without fail that person
played better simply as a result of being scrutinized.

Being that critic and scrutinizing yourself in that same way is probably the
surest way to improve your own art. That is why taste must come before good
art. And that is why the best artists never seem satisfied. If they ever had
been satisfied along the way, they never would have made it as far as they
did.

