

Valuable to others, or only you? - raheemm
http://sivers.org/starving-artist

======
jdietrich
Almost all great works of art were produced for the enjoyment of the artist's
patrons, be it music, visual art or theatre. For most of western history, it
was obvious that an artist's main concern was first and foremost to please his
patrons.

I think it says something rather worrying about modernity that at some point
we rejected the notion that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". From
Shakespeare to The Beatles, there is a tremendous history of great works being
produced by avowedly populist artists.

Personally, I think it's a symptom of our cultural narcissism. When we strip
away the rhetoric of art, it becomes obvious that "ignoring what other people
think and just making your own art" is vain and arrogant.

~~~
Ardit20
How is to express yourself vain?

I suppose keeping a diary, which in its own way is a literary form, is vain?

~~~
jdietrich
It's vain when you think that your deepest feelings are so interesting that
people would want to hear about them them. It's vain when you're more
concerned with what you have to say than whether people will enjoy hearing it.

I get genuinely angry when I go to a gig or a show where it's obvious that the
performers are self-absorbed and have no interest in the audience. The
audience have paid to come into town, they've paid for their tickets, they are
paying for drinks at the bar, the least the band can do is try to entertain
them. When bands play indulgent solos or play a bad song that the drummer has
written, they're insulting their audience by saying that their ego as a band
is more important than the enjoyment of the fans.

If you keep a diary or paint purely for your own pleasure then that's fine,
the problem comes when you expect people to care about your art. We tell
aspiring writers and musicians and artists that they should 'be true to their
art', but I think that's dead wrong - I think your duty is to be true to your
audience.

There's an interesting exception in comedy. A bad comic can't hide - if he's
not funny, it's obvious to everyone. Today, comedy is really the only artform
where it's acceptable for an audience to boo off a performer, but historically
it was commonplace in all performing arts. I think we as a culture should be
prepared to say "no, you haven't worked hard enough on your performance, go
home until you're good enough to entertain". It happens every night at comedy
clubs, but rarely anywhere else.

I think that mistake is a symptom of the prizes-for-all narcissism that says
everyone's opinion matters no matter how ill-informed or poorly thought out,
that every crude doodle is a work of art if the doodler _really meant it_. A
fundamental trait of narcissism is magical thinking, the belief that wishing
something makes it so. The art world has in many respects come to define art
as whatever the artist decides is art.

~~~
Vyk
"I think that mistake is a symptom of the prizes-for-all narcissism that says
... every crude doodle is a work of art if the doodler really meant it."

It is. Art is a process as well as a result. Whether the result is good art,
mediocre art, or bad art is the real question here, and some art is undeniably
terrible.

------
10ren
painting by numbers (art by demographic statistics):
[http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Numbers-Komar-Melamids-
Scient...](http://www.amazon.com/Painting-Numbers-Komar-Melamids-
Scientific/dp/0520218612)

When I was 10, The Flintstones had an episode about this. Fred and Barney
gathered statistics about what people wanted in a song, and then composed it.
They catered to all subjects, and a punchline was that one of them was
"mothers-in-law". The song was terrible; the main message seemed to be that
such art lacks integrity (not in an ethical sense, but in a sense of fitting
together, being whole, being one thing). Of course, such lack isn't
_necessary_ (eg. the Monkees had some great songs), but it is much harder than
speaking out of a deeper truth. Perhaps it's like the flow of writing off the
top of your head vs. over-editing and getting a patchwork of concepts and
mismatched conjugations.

I've always liked the idea of a work being both popular and critically
acclaimed (who doesn't?). I do think there's a thrill in doing something that
is very cool to yourself; but there is also a _thrill_ in doing something that
is truly valuable to people. Both can be aspects of the heroic journey, of
serving something greater than oneself: serving an idea, or serving a
community.

But I think this may be a little different for art (which Sivers is talking
about) and software (which I'm (mainly) talking about).

------
robryan
I remember hearing on the radio some time back they were interviewing Brian
Mcfadden and he was talking about the inspiration for he's latest album.
Basically he had gone and sought out exactly what the popular trends in music
young people were listening to at the moment and created an album to match
those trends.

It seems like sales and popularity wise a smart thing to do but I was quiet
thrown by an artist saying that there work wasn't a personal expression but
rather designed for maximum return, it seems counter to most of what you heard
with artists speaking of there music.

Granted I wouldn't personally be listening to his music either way.

~~~
derefr
I have a working hypothesis that all of the best (or, at least, most famous)
artists in history actually worked this way: they first became a "machine"
with well-honed skills, and preferences slowly beaten into shape over decades
of experience, into which high concepts could be fed and art would emerge—and
then fed in the best of their current culture at the time. Shakespeare, for
example, or Bach.

If you take an average journeyman artist and try to "plug and chug" culture,
you get, well, _pop_. But if you take a master, you get _classics_. (And I do
mean to imply the converse: if you give a master an input that _isn't_ popular
culture, the result likely won't _be_ a classic—in the way that _Star Wars_ or
_Dark Side of the Moon_ is classic. Instead, people will refer to it as a
"masterpiece", like _Lolita_ or, lately, _Inception_.)

The main difference between the two types, is that masterpieces just sit there
and accrue attention, while classics actually melt back into the culture that
spawned them, inviting parody and pastiche to such a point that it could be
said they have invented a genre (ahem, _Lord of the Rings_.) It is the latter
that will "stick" to culture hundreds of years hence, while the former will be
relegated to scholars and textbooks.

~~~
cynicalkane
Bach didn't write pop music that was the product of the current culture. He
wrote in a style that was considered archaic and byzantine; a dead style even
in his time. Baroque music was dead and classical music was on the rise. He
was always well respected, but never popular in his lifetime (or generations
after).

I also object to your claim that Lord of the Rings invented its genre. I don't
know who considers Inception a masterpiece in the same way Lolita is. And so
on. I'd complain more about all the wrong things you wrote, but I wonder if
there's a point. It just bothers me when people try to get all intellectual
about things of which they clearly have no knowledge.

~~~
golwengaud
Baroque vs. classical music: That is at best a very simplistic view of the
situation: see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_music#Transition_to_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_music#Transition_to_the_Classical_era_.281740.E2.80.931780.29)
. Also, note that counterpoint remained alive and well, though it certainly
did not have the importance it had in the Baroque period, through the
Romanticism and the 20th century. The chorale (second movement) from Vierne's
second symphony, Shostakovich's cycle of 24 preludes and fugues, and the canon
section from the first section of his 7th symphony come to mind.

Furthermore, my impression (though I cannot find a citation to back this up)
was that many if not most of Bach's compositions were produced by taking
elements of popular culture and trying to produce from them something people
would find meaningful on the next Sunday. Consider the Passion Chorale, which
Bach used in (among other things) the Christmas Cantata and the St. Matthew
Passion. The tune was originally composed 50 or 100 years earlier by Hans Leo
Hassler for a song whose title was something like "my heart is beguiled by a
pretty maid"; the most common words ("O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden") are from
a German translation by Paul Gerhardt of a mediaeval Latin hymn.

All of this is not to deny or even to downplay Bach's genius. He simply, as
derefr says, took popular inputs and did amazing, wonderful things.

~~~
cynicalkane
To refer to chorale melodies as "popular music" is really a stretch. For
instance, Wikipedia tells us that "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden" was in use as
a chorale by 1656. You'd be really stretching to call this and other chorales
a "popular input". I've never read or heard anything to indicate that church
melodies were significantly popular in the 1700s.

Popular music was stuff like song, opera, maybe some easy instrumental stuff
(though I can't remember when music publishing took off). Bach wrote few
songs, no opera, and his instrumental output was very difficult and went
largely unpublished.

Also, I don't know what the 'Christmas Cantata' is. Google wasn't any help in
clarifying it. Bach wrote about two billion settings of that chorale, so
that's not much help.

------
Alex3917
It's ironic that you use Mozart as an example since he A) died poor and alone
and B) would probably be long forgotten by now if he'd gone out of his way to
create music that created value for others.

~~~
istari
A) Mozart died poor and alone because he was an alcoholic and was horrible
with money. His music was tremendously popular during his time.

B) Mozart was raised as a professional musician from an early age by his
musician father, performing to royalty as a child prodigy. His JOB was court
musician. Given his upbringing and employment, how could he NOT care about
what others thought about his music? How could he NOT cater to their tastes?

~~~
gjm11
> he was an alcoholic

[citation needed]

~~~
istari
Upon searching Wikipedia and not finding it, I realized the actual source is
the movie Amadeus...

Just as good, right?

~~~
Mz
_Just as good, right?_

Probably not:

 _Mozart's drinking runs as a sub-theme throughout the plot in Amadeus. But in
reality, it seems that he rarely drank to excess, though in his last year or
two his drinking did appear to have increased. During the summer of 1791 when
Constanze was in Baden, "he used to drink champagne with Schikaneder all
morning, and punch all night." But this report stems from Ignaz Ernst
Ferdinand Karl Arnold, who was without firsthand knowledge. While alcoholic
writers are legion, the condition seems rare among composers; it is possible
that great music was composed under the influence, but not with such
consistency or productivity._

<http://www.mozartproject.org/essays/brown.html>

Not trying to bust you. Just trying to discern the truth and a quick google
turns up no real agreement with the movie version. As for other remarks here
about Mozart being poor, that may not be accurate either:

 _Mozart never went out of style, he never was broke, fallen out of favor,
etc., and the bit about being buried in a Pauper's grave? Well, everyone who
was not royalty at that time was buried in mass graves. If you were notable,
but not royalty, you got a plaque on the wall of the cemetery, which he did.

The fact is, Mozart was pretty well off for most of his adult life, compared
to the average Venetian. He had a billiards table, an apartment with several
rooms, and even his own carriage, which was very unusual for even the middle
class. When he died, an audit was performed for death taxes, and it was done
by a fellow Mason, who listed the value of his stuff at WAAAAYYYY lower than
it actually was worth - as a favor to his widow._

[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080512155619AA...](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080512155619AA41hbH)

------
_delirium
When I'm looking for things others have created, I actually tend to use the
opposite of this question. Was it created by someone who themselves finds it
useful/interesting/etc., or did they just make something that they thought
would be useful/interesting to others, but don't themselves really care about?
I tend to avoid the second category if possible.

------
edw519
This reminds me of 2 pieces of advice I received from 2 early mentors, both 3
words, and diametrically opposed.

1\. "Scratch an itch."

2\. "Find a customer."

#1 comes naturally to a hacker. I'm always building things for myself. Then I
think, "If I need it, someone else probably does, too."

#2 does not come naturally at all. I have to work at it. Frankly, I'd rather
build stuff than talk to people (although that has changed quite a bit over
the years).

FWIW, I have found very little success with #1 (one big exception: a program
generator I wrote for myself was very well received by others).

#2 has worked beautifully. Every time I have ever found and satisfied a first
customer, the second, third, fourth, etc. were much easier to find and satisfy
because they needed the same thing. What great advice. I wish I had listened
much earlier.

~~~
gcheong
How do you do #2? Do you have a solution in mind and then look for customers
or is it a matter of asking people what their problems are or a bit of both?
Do you do cold calls?

~~~
edw519
How do I find customers? I just talk to people. All the time. I allow my
inquisitive nature to take over. But most importantly, I really care. A mentor
of mine once told me that lots of people need what we provide, so it's our
responsibility to find them and see what we can do to help.

If I'm in someone's business (even as a retail customer), I often ask to watch
as they enter data into their customer facing system. This invariably leads to
some discussion and who knows what else. I attend events and network
regularly, even if it's just staying in touch with acquaintances and asking
what others are up to. Email works really well for this.

I don't have a solution in mind because I want to listen to the other's
problems first. If something I have written (generally small business or
e-commerce) sounds close to what can help them, I may go down that path.
Anything else, I pass, but gladly provide a referral to someone who _can_
help, if I know of any.

I don't cold call in the pure sense. That's just not my nature. If I ever got
good at that, then I wouldn't need to be a programmer, I'd just sell someone
else's product.

I found an old semi-related post of mine that may also be helpful:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=182400>

------
DilipJ
I think pg had a good essay on this topic:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/organic.html>

basically, it says that it's better to try to create something that you want,
because when you're young you will have a very difficult time understanding
what someone else wants. Also, you are more likely to be motivated if you are
creating something for yourself. Creating something for someone else is too
much like work (without the salary)

------
bitwize
_Push to new shocking extremes to give people something to discuss
afterwards._

This is the pattern I call "pickling the shark", after a piece of artwork
carefully calculated to do precisely that:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_D...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of_Someone_Living)

------
w1ntermute
I don't mean to be picky, but could someone correct the title before my OCD
brain explodes?

~~~
raheemm
Done

