Live data from Hacker News

The secret to success in the arts

felixsalmon.com

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#21
EVERYTHING can be put in a distribution. Showing that something is X standard deviations away from the mean does not explain at all how they got there.

Take SAT scores for example. Are the top scorers just lucky? Luck may explain one’s 1500 relative to a 1490 or 1510, but luck doesn’t explain the difference between 1000 and 1500 except for maybe some extreme tail case. More importantly, the fact that SAT scores fit on a distribution does not in any way show us how they got in that distribution.

Whether fund managers and artists are lucky or not is not proven or disproven by this blog post.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#22

Before adopting programming as my job and passion, I was a professional actor and I plan on continuing to act professionally when I move back to to a place where it is more avaialble. Working professionally in many capacities for many years, I can tell you that luck certainly helps, for some people. This author completely discounts artists who trained, worked and pushed themselves for years and years to get where the…

What I will say, however, is that luck still has something to do with it. The top tiers of actors have the money to purchase additional coaching, can attend more auditions because they aren't holding down another job, and can generally devote more of their life to the craft. Take two actors competing for the same part in an audition for an independent role. They are nearly equal down to a flip of a coin, but one just…

The top tiers of actors have the money to purchase additional coaching, can attend more auditions because they aren't holding down another job, and can generally devote more of their life to the craft.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is true or a valid argument. If I may rephrase your assertion: are rich programmers better programmers because they have more resources to attend job interviews and can program more often? Whatever your craft may be, time (or money; same thing), doesn't necessarily mean anything about level of skill. Can it be a contributing factor? Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples on both sides of the coin to say one way or the other.

Take two actors competing for the same part in an audition for an independent role. They are nearly equal down to a flip of a coin, but one just happens to catch the director's eye a hair more that day.

It sounds, to me, like you're confusing luck for someone making a decision. Your assumption, that a director makes decisions on how the actor's hair looks that day, is extremely flawed. The truth is: there aren't 300 actors each coming in and doing everything the exact same, looking the exact same, and performing the exact same. Hell, there aren't even 2. Each one is an entire collection of skills, experience, head shots, and each one will deliver a different performance.

Professional and successful directors are, for the most part, incredibly skilled; masters of observation with uncanny abilities to find the right person for their vision.

Again, allow me to make the programmer analogy: if two programmers came in and wrote the exact same code, in the exact same amount of time, and produced the same output, on the same problem, where does that leave the decision? In the hands of the many other possibilities that the person hiring will take into consideration. Luck? No, it's someone making a decision.

Could that decision be based on whether their hair looked good in a certain light? Perhaps, but that would be absolutely silly for the person doing the hiring; they would gain nothing from it. They certainly wouldn't be a director working on a successful blockbuster movie if they really were making their decisions as haphazardly and with such flightiness as you assert they are. They will hire based on a multitude of reasons from, profitability, to talent, to personality, and all kinds of things in between.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#23

EVERYTHING can be put in a distribution. Showing that something is X standard deviations away from the mean does not explain at all how they got there. Take SAT scores for example. Are the top scorers just lucky? Luck may explain one’s 1500 relative to a 1490 or 1510, but luck doesn’t explain the difference between 1000 and 1500 except for maybe some extreme tail case. More importantly, the fact that SAT scores fit o…

But SAT outcome for individuals is deterministic by design. If there was any significant luck component, it wouldn't be a good measure in the first place. Yet you can't deny the possibility that some fool could score 1500+ by merely circling the correct sequence of bubbles without having much skill. Furthermore winner doesn't take all in SATs. They just go to some college and that's the end of it. Contrast that with the stock market where there is a much more significant luck component and compounded effects of winners taking all and losers getting pruned out year after year.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you really think that getting featured by Apple in an App Store "guide" is accidental? That it's strictly Apple deciding who makes the cut without external influence? Or is it a whole lot of interested parties pitching their product in the background? It is luck. If you emphasize the preparation part (of 'where preparation meets opportunity' -Seneca). Of the three developers I know who have been featured in the…

I have an anecdote to counter your anecdote - I have worked with a company whose apps have been regularly featured in the App Store (and beyond) due to extensive legwork by our (extremely competent) marketing folk. The fact that the apps were incredibly well-made didn't hurt. And this underscores the whole point - success is a probability function, it is hardly ever guaranteed. The author seems to blow this out of pr…

> due to extensive legwork by our (extremely competent) marketing folk.

Without giving away the secret sauce, does that company have a strong niche that they excel in? I am fascinated by competent marketing; one of the apps I mentioned, before their launch, basically pulled together anyone who had ever emailed them about their previous apps and sent a really gorgeous teaser email.

I also wonder if your app icons are in the top 1%.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#25
To make this quantitative, there are some interesting studies that show the popularity of music depends largely on luck. Researchers built a music sharing site that showed the popularity of different downloads and found not surprisingly that people downloaded the popular songs more. The interesting part is they randomly showed different users different popularity rankings. The songs that became popular with one set of users weren't very correlated with the songs that became popular with another set of users - basically once a song randomly gets more popular, positive feedback sets in.

To summarize the abstract:

"Increasing the strength of social influence increased both inequality and unpredictability of success. Success was also only partly determined by quality: The best songs rarely did poorly, and the worst rarely did well, but any other result was possible."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5762/854.short http://www.princeton.edu/~mjs3/salganik_watts08.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mjs3/salganik_dodds_watts06_full.p...

It would be interesting to test this with Hacker News, showing different users two different sets of comment rankings. This would show how much top-rated comments get voted up because they are popular versus voted up because they are "better".

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#26
post #23

EVERYTHING can be put in a distribution. Showing that something is X standard deviations away from the mean does not explain at all how they got there. Take SAT scores for example. Are the top scorers just lucky? Luck may explain one’s 1500 relative to a 1490 or 1510, but luck doesn’t explain the difference between 1000 and 1500 except for maybe some extreme tail case. More importantly, the fact that SAT scores fit o…

But SAT outcome for individuals is deterministic by design. If there was any significant luck component, it wouldn't be a good measure in the first place. Yet you can't deny the possibility that some fool could score 1500+ by merely circling the correct sequence of bubbles without having much skill. Furthermore winner doesn't take all in SATs. They just go to some college and that's the end of it. Contrast that with…

Your statement, while widely believed has not been proven or disproven by the fact that people's success can be shown on a distribution.

Contrast that with the stock market where there is a much more significant luck component and compounded effects of winners taking all and losers getting pruned out year after year.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#27
I think this article suffers from a lack of understanding of what exactly artists do, and how they become successful. From several of the excellent replies, luck does have something to do with it, but just because the OP doesn't understand the skill put into getting a gig or putting on a successful spoken word performance piece, for example, doesn't mean that an artist is just "lucky" to be successful.

Lots of armchair handwaving here.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#28

I think this article suffers from a lack of understanding of what exactly artists do, and how they become successful. From several of the excellent replies, luck does have something to do with it, but just because the OP doesn't understand the skill put into getting a gig or putting on a successful spoken word performance piece, for example, doesn't mean that an artist is just "lucky" to be successful. Lots of armcha…

There is also another factor: allowing yourself to be lucky.

While I can not attribute my experience to be anything like an artist's, I find that at least for myself, my artistic endeavors are much more successful when I am open to types of creativity different from mine.

Working with other people and allowing their art to change my art, but at the same time holding onto the kernel that my art is about results in more opportunities to "catch that particularly important editor's eye" or to become more "lucky" so to speak.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#29

Luck is certainly a big part of success - but IMO the author has misclassified a lot of skillful execution as luck, and that's a shame. > "Carly Rae Jepsen has a catchy pop tune, but is only really successful because she happened to be in the right place at the right time." No, publicity like this is practically never accidental. Every news article, blog post, radio station play, magazine mention, is highly deliberat…

She's actually an excellent example. She is a Canadian performer who placed third on a season of Canadian Idol, and it happened that Justin Bieber was listening to the radio, heard "Call Me Maybe," and tweeted about it. Perhaps the song would have spread later on its own, but Canadians can probably point to five or six other well-played pop songs that never really crossed the border.

But how many times did Carly practice and rehearse and sing that song in public before that happened? Dozens? Hundreds? And just to make it on the show Canadian Idol and get that exposure - was that luck? Or did it take a lot of courage and gut churning effort?

She EARNED that chance to be heard by Bieber. Luck doesn't and never does have anything to do with it. Luck doesn't exist. The word luck is just a way to discredit hard work and unseen efforts.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#30

Before adopting programming as my job and passion, I was a professional actor and I plan on continuing to act professionally when I move back to to a place where it is more avaialble. Working professionally in many capacities for many years, I can tell you that luck certainly helps, for some people. This author completely discounts artists who trained, worked and pushed themselves for years and years to get where the…

Well, in my view, the author might have unfairly characterized all arts as having too much in common with each other. I know nothing about filming. Before I became a professional writer (for a company, not actually writing books), I was an aspiring musician and, let me tell you, what he says is very accurate for this 'career'.

All the bands (or 'projects' as we liked to call them) I've ever been in (more than 10 in the last 15 or so years) thought we could have made it; 'making it' meaning having monetary success or 'living off of music'. All of us failed except one of my ex-band members.

The problem is, as the author suggests, it's not really about skill, though there is a level of skill needed to be successful. That level is very low, though, whereas in other professions that skill level might mean a 30, 40 or 50k salary difference.

As a child, I thought playing music was about skill, so I learned classical guitar, and, according to my friends, I was the 'best guitar player they knew'. I always got compliments at shows and on my own albums. I was never even close to being found out by an A&R guy or signed to a record label. And guess what? There are a lot of people like me. 10 years ago I got really into jazz and that was my new circle or 'thing'. I came at music more from a jazz perspective because I knew theory and deconstructed tunes (in all styles) whereas rock musicians don't really like to do that and many of them can't. I remember going to the jazz festival and talking to musicians telling me how 'Yah, we're signed, but we don't even get a free copy of our album. We have to pay for it like everybody else'. These local musicians are successful because they live off their music, but many of them have modest earnings that pay the bills. They can't afford vacationing every year to somewhere fancy and most have beat-up cars, maybe a wife, and no more than one child, if that. They are very humble people.

(And yet, and yet) you have people that can hardly sing a note that are famous where their work is based on great post-production sound engineers. It's easy to be bitter about the music industry, but a lot of them aren't. I know I'm not and I listen to Justin Bieber without a problem (though my friends and family think it is very bizarre of me to).

The way you reach monetary/economic success as a musician is usually about non-music-related stuff you do, which is strange because in most professions, the way you become successful is by practicing your art and honing your skills.

My only friend (my ex-band mate) that is 'successful' tours the world and lives off music, but he barely breaks even, since they have to pay for studio costs, equipment costs, accommodation, car/transportation costs, roadies, etc. He loves it, but he says it is extremely difficult and gets depressed easily. This particular friend knows his limited skills so he goes more for showmanship and energy and getting people pumped - he plays garage rock. The funny (interesting) thing is his band was about to disband when all of a sudden the right A&R guy discovered them. It took probably 4 years of touring the country (Canada) and some parts of the States all on their own expense while having full-time jobs and doing it on their vacation time. Thousands of dollars. He was doing it while we were in a band together and with our band we burnt over 10k of our own money in only a year and a half.

Now when I hear him on the radio I love it. I'm so proud of him (and I can picture everyone laughing at me for being such a nerd). But there is a huge element of luck and he knows it. You work hard and don't expect to make it, yet you put yourself through it because you love your art, your music. And you do this for decades.

Post reply on HN