
Founders who can't code are like artist painters who can't paint - hoodoof
Sure it is definitely possible to for an artist to get someone else to create their artwork vision, but it&#x27;s a whole lot easier and cheaper and quicker and the outcome is like to be better if the artist can do the painting.
======
soloadventurer
Can we also say Founders that can't sell are hobbyists? I can't code. But I
work in industry (not tech related at all) and we have niche problems to be
solved and customers are lining up. As of right now, I'm a solo "founder" with
no coding skills and hired tech guys to do the MVP.

I think your original assertion is a bit much. I wish I was better at coding,
but at this point in my life it is more valuable for me to sit with my clients
and build relationships. I think that even if I was a very capable programmer,
I would still not code and rather go out and talk to my clients or potential
clients, because that is something my programming team cannot do. The more I
interact with my clients, the more I learn about problems and issues they have
that can be fixed with technology.

------
Mz
I think that depends on what kind of company it is. Not all companies are
"tech" companies.

~~~
cholantesh
And even those that are do not need to be headed by a coder.

~~~
Mz
Jessica Livingston comes to mind. YC seems to doing okay.

------
WhiteSource1
Founding a company isn't just about developing something. That's what an open
source project is.

It's also about finding the right product-market fit, knowing how to market,
knowing how to sell. How about founders who can't market are like painters who
can't paint?

------
siquick
Two things that just aren't comparable I'm afraid.

~~~
hoodoof
On the contrary, when I get a vision of a product in my head, I feel utterly
compelled to write the code until the vision is complete.

I feel like this must be what happens to artists - when they get a vision for
an artwork, they must feel compelled to create it.

If the founder with the vision does not have the skills to create their vision
then they must pay others to do so.

So I think the comparison extremely apt.

~~~
Declanomous
There are extremely successful artists who pay for other people to create
their work. Similarly, artists regularly pay other people to make things for
them, such as frames, etc.

There are a lot more artists who are technically skilled that don't have a
creative bone in their body. You might as well pay them to create your work so
you can leverage your best talent -- your ideas.

~~~
heynowletsgo
An person who pays others to create their work can be called a lot of things,
but artist is not one of them.

~~~
Declanomous
I disagree. The art was clearly created. I don't think the mechanical act of
creating art has supremacy over the creative act.

In fact, I'd contend that as a society we've agreed that the creative act is
supreme to the mechanical act. Architects, directors, large scale-sculpture
artists. Their works are created by other people, they merely provide
instructions for other people to execute.

~~~
heynowletsgo
Semantics.

~~~
Declanomous
Well the argument is obviously is going to be centered around semantics if I'm
responding to the claim that an artist isn't an artist if they don't make art
in the right way.

~~~
heynowletsgo
That's why we're not arguing. Art is like fun, I know it when I see it.

------
Jyefet
Like Steve Jobs?

------
ParameterOne
A founder who can't code is called "businessman".

------
destraynor
What about design?

