Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The secret to success in the arts

felixsalmon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#31

Post by debacle »

wtvanhest wrote: post #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 o…

When you're dealing with professional artists, or professionals in any sense, it's the difference between a 1490 and a 1510 that is what is fundamentally unquantifiable.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#32

Post by ims »

kafkaesque wrote: post #30
randomdrake wrote: post #4

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 t…

> 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.

Seems like this is actually common to every profession where other people matter to your success... which is almost every profession. On HN, one usually hears this same idea framed as coding/design/product versus business/selling/marketing. I think people in most lines of work would agree that as long as you are not incompetent it is personal relationships, image, persuasion, and all of those 'soft' skills that that matter more to (financial) success than technical skill.

Really interesting post. Thanks.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#33

Post by ebiester »

autophil wrote: post #29
ebiester wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disc…

The luck is that he happened to hear that song at that time. What happens if there's another channel on, not playing that song?

Think of it as a 6 sided dice roll. 3d6 simulates a bell curve of skill + 1d6 simulating luck, and you need 18 or more to "win." The top of the top talent will rise to the top with or without luck. Those without the drive or talent won't "win" even if they have the best luck.

But to ignore that luck exists? Talent and hard work are a pre-requesite, but everything from winning the genetic lottery (passport from an Industrialized country) to being attractive.

For another example... in 1999, a Canadian band called The Tea Party had a #1 single called "Heaven Coming down," and had a great run in Canada, but they never became the global sensation Nickelback did, despite having talent. (That is not to disparage Nickelback -- that band worked hard, and had talent. Why did one make it in America, and one only in Canada, and Europe/Australia to a lesser extent?)

King's X was rated one of the top 100 artists of hard rock by VH1. They toured their ass off, yet somehow never captured the attention that others expected them to get. Sometimes, it isn't all about talent and hard work.

Again: talent is a prerequesite. Luck does not cancel talent out by any means! Luck does not describe Bill Gates -- he likely would have been successful even if his parents weren't millionaires. However, we might all remember CP/M a little better if Mary Maxwell Gates isn't on the United Way board with John Opel.

Now, that doesn't mean Gates and Microsoft doesn't become massive in another way. However, that small bit of "luck" helped tilt IBM to trust a less known entity. ___

The way I look at luck is not like the lottery, but rather a dice roll. You may have to roll yahtzee, but if you give yourself a thousand chances, you're better off than the person who only gives themselves one chance, or resigns themselves to failure because they figure only someone lucky can roll yahtzee.

You still may have to be at the right place at the right time, but if you work hard to stick around the right place, the right time is significantly more likely.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#34

Post by [deleted] »

autophil wrote: post #29
ebiester wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disc…

[deleted]

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#35

Post by _lj »

Most of the discussion here is focused on skill vs luck. Those are far from the only two variables is success, however. There's Networking, the ability to sell yourself and the ability to target a specific niche (which in art, means not being too different, but not being exactly the same as everybody else, either). These factors influence success more than skill and luck combined.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#36

Post by ebiester »

randomdrake wrote: post #22
ebiester wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oft…

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/1... --

I'm so much as saying they were two equally suitable choices, who both worked equally hard, but one happened to audition right after lunch. Regardless of the uncanny observation skills, we're still human and in the case of two great choices, even superficial differences such as the serotonin level of the director at the time of the first impression can matter.

However, the one who got the part, by nature of the increased experience, is now a better actor. This doesn't at all discount the hard work of the one who made it, but suggests that luck matters as well.

This doesn't discount those of us who work hard to create our own luck. As mentioned to another reply, you may have to roll yatzhee, but it is your hard work that gives you 1,000 roles instead of one.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#37

Post by nateberkopec »

lazerwalker wrote: post #12
nateberkopec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salmon's point isn't that there is no variance in creative skill, it's just that there isn't enough to matter in the scheme of being "the best in the world". There's not nearly enough variance to compensate for the luck required to be in the top 100 out of several million. What you're describing is a "3-sigma" difference, but to be an A-list Hollywood star you'd need to be in something like the 50th sigma. That just…

My problem with his article is that he seems to only define "success" and "recognition" in terms of being within that top 100. There are a lot of startups that are profitable and have users loving their products that will never sell to Facebook for $1 billion. Using Salmon's argument, it takes pure luck to get to that Instagram-level of success. I buy that. I don't think it follows that all of those small profitable…

I don't think he does. You have to take the argument in context - he's talking about Nassim Taleb, who's interested in "Black Swan" 50-sigma outcomes.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#38

Post by nateberkopec »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #14
nateberkopec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salmon's point isn't that there is no variance in creative skill, it's just that there isn't enough to matter in the scheme of being "the best in the world". There's not nearly enough variance to compensate for the luck required to be in the top 100 out of several million. What you're describing is a "3-sigma" difference, but to be an A-list Hollywood star you'd need to be in something like the 50th sigma. That just…

Um, the 50'th sigma is nonexistent on any physical scale. The 27'th sigma is 10^-317, and the 28'th sigma is too small to represent with doubles. For comparison, the number of atoms in the universe is about 10^80. Hollywood actors are, at best, in the 3-4'th sigma.

Taleb and Salmon are thinking about a non-normal fat tail distribution (that's the point of Taleb's book) so it's entirely possible.

Re: The secret to success in the arts

#39

Post by nateberkopec »

thenomad wrote: post #13
nateberkopec wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salmon's point isn't that there is no variance in creative skill, it's just that there isn't enough to matter in the scheme of being "the best in the world". There's not nearly enough variance to compensate for the luck required to be in the top 100 out of several million. What you're describing is a "3-sigma" difference, but to be an A-list Hollywood star you'd need to be in something like the 50th sigma. That just…

I don't have enough data to prove or disprove this statement - although I do know a lot of working and non-working artists, and anecdotally skill seems to win out. I'd agree, if you're intending to be an A-list star and won't settle for anything less, luck is going to have to play a pretty significant role. But there are a lot of jobs and opportunities for an actor, for example, outside the "best of the best" situati…

That's his point though - extreme success requires extreme luck, not extreme skill. I think you're in violent agreement with Salmon.
Post reply on HN