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

Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

markusstrasser.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#91

Post by markusstrasser »

Author here. Somehow the worst thing I ever wrote is on the front page of HN.

I wrote this fast so there's jargon and bad prose. The title is deliberately dry and bland so I wasn't expecting anyone to click it. Also I slightly changed my mind on some of the claims .. might write up later.

The main reason I like to think of creative work in a more abstract/formal/geometric way (acceptance volume, latency, sampling) is it's easier for me categorize tasks, modalities and domains and know how to design or work around it. It's very much biased by more own experiences making things.

Also, abstract technical concept often come with nice guarantees/properties/utils to build on .. some would say that's their raison d'être.

Re comments: * "this is just diminishing returns" -- ok and this is a framework for why: the non-worsening region collapses, so most micro-edits fail

* "bands record bangers in an hour" –– practice tax was prepaid. The recording session is exploitation/search riding on cached heuristics imo (and it still takes hours of repeated recording/mixing/producing to actually produce a single album track).

* music key example –– yes I should've picked a different one. Main point was that some choices create wider tolerance (arrangement/range/timbre) even if keys are symmetric in equal temperament

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#92

Post by kjkjadksj »

nradov wrote: post #74
sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I’ve learned over decades of home/DIY projects is it’s usually better to intentionally target a small overlap/reveal rather than trying to have two materials match perfectly. If you have a piece of door trim that exactly matches the piece behind, any imperfections or subsequent wood movement will be unsightly. If you instead target a 1/4” reveal, imperfections and slight wood movement are wildly less notice…

One thing I learned from theater set construction is that you can slap some gaffer's tape and paint over any flaws, and the audience will never notice.

The audience is like 25+ feet away to be fair. A little different in your kitchen.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#93

Post by brk »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51

Bands and artists do sometimes record a banger very quickly, and no, the effort is not in muscle memory or practice. If it was in muscle memory it would be repeatable feat, and it really isn't. Some work is technically polished and you can see/hear the effort that went into it. But there's a point where extra effort makes the work less good. Music starts to sound stale and overproduced, art loses some of its directne…

"But there's a point where extra effort makes the work less good."

This happens frequently in mixing and mastering audio tracks. You pile up incremental changes that all seemed good at the time. Then you go back and listen to a recording from 20 revisions ago and it sounds better than your current "best" effort.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#95

Post by cestith »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #92
nradov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I learned from theater set construction is that you can slap some gaffer's tape and paint over any flaws, and the audience will never notice.

The audience is like 25+ feet away to be fair. A little different in your kitchen.

The scale is different but the principle is still quite similar.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#96

Post by cestith »

DuperPower wrote: post #43
qlm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, I have no idea what you're talking about. Dead Poets Society is a story and the message of the story isn't that Robin Williams' character is bad. Are you saying my perspective is anti-socialist? What is "refined" art?

of course in the movie they sell the idea that art is not subject to scientific or technical analysis, but if you do an indepent analysis you realize those kids didnt become stronger or freer. Art like the article explained is related to effort and technique. but people in the US LOVE stuff like Jackson pollock, they need for art to not being a thing you put effort and mind into

You can put art through all sorts of scientific and technical analysis. Being analyzed is how we teach the techniques to new artists. A mechanical reproduction of it from that analysis is not art, though, and sometimes you get the break the rules in favor of the expression.

Did you know, for example, that Shakespeare coined a great many words and phrases used in English to this day? Before Sam Clemens, people tended to speak in proper schoolhouse English no matter the setting or character. Poetry and prose are not just the ability to arrange words on a page. Novels and plays are not limited to the three-act or five-act story arc. Simile and metaphor are often encouraged, but overused ones are actually frowned upon.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#97

Post by bluGill »

nradov wrote: post #74
sokoloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I’ve learned over decades of home/DIY projects is it’s usually better to intentionally target a small overlap/reveal rather than trying to have two materials match perfectly. If you have a piece of door trim that exactly matches the piece behind, any imperfections or subsequent wood movement will be unsightly. If you instead target a 1/4” reveal, imperfections and slight wood movement are wildly less notice…

One thing I learned from theater set construction is that you can slap some gaffer's tape and paint over any flaws, and the audience will never notice.

Except for others who do that type of work and so know what to look for. I have a friend who does trim work in mansions - I can't take him to a restaurant near me because the trim work is terrible and he can't help but stare at it the whole time - nobody else notices.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#98

Post by bluGill »

brk wrote: post #93
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51

Bands and artists do sometimes record a banger very quickly, and no, the effort is not in muscle memory or practice. If it was in muscle memory it would be repeatable feat, and it really isn't. Some work is technically polished and you can see/hear the effort that went into it. But there's a point where extra effort makes the work less good. Music starts to sound stale and overproduced, art loses some of its directne…

"But there's a point where extra effort makes the work less good." This happens frequently in mixing and mastering audio tracks. You pile up incremental changes that all seemed good at the time. Then you go back and listen to a recording from 20 revisions ago and it sounds better than your current "best" effort.

Sometimes that is because you need 60 more revisions to make it good - though you may have to go back to the start several times to figure out which are good.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#99

Post by moron4hire »

raincole wrote: post #65
moron4hire wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to think way too hard about what the author was trying to say. It smacks of an attempt at precise language, yet the subject matter is not precise at all. The author commits a Paul Grahamism, assuming their personal experience is generalizable and uniform. Certainly, some artists work in the way they describe. Maybe even "most", who knows. But there are plenty of artists that do not. I've known plenty of artists…

In defense of Paul Graham, his essays are often unnecessarily long, but I don't remember he has written something as bad as this abstract. It's more on par with something you'll find on lesswrong.

Oh, yeah, Graham doesn't write in this style, but he does mistake personal experience for universal truth, which is the vibe I get from articles like this when they try to use officious language in an inappropriate way.

Re: Why effort scales superlinearly with the perceived quality of creative work

#100

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

bluGill wrote: post #98
brk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But there's a point where extra effort makes the work less good." This happens frequently in mixing and mastering audio tracks. You pile up incremental changes that all seemed good at the time. Then you go back and listen to a recording from 20 revisions ago and it sounds better than your current "best" effort.

Sometimes that is because you need 60 more revisions to make it good - though you may have to go back to the start several times to figure out which are good.

I find I can churn away making revisions for a month and it makes a new, typically worse, song
Post reply on HN