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

How I became an artist

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: How I became an artist

#91

Post by thenomad »

superuser2 wrote: post #36
sktrdie wrote: post #9

This is great and you're of great inspiration to young artists or simply anybody that wants to pursue their dreams. I think that living a humble life doing simple things that don't necessarily lead to professional success, is still a very noble lifestyle. The pressure society has brought upon us to follow our dreams, simply because it's nice to follow your dreams, is a bit of a pipe dream. What I'm trying to say is t…

I'm not sure this is true. You can be happy with work that anyone skilled in the art thinks is terrible, i.e. maybe you're really proud of your $REGISTER_GLOBALS dependent, SQLi-vulnerable, spaghetti PHP app. Maybe you're really happy with your scientific paper that the peer review community has ripped to shreds as false. Or you really, really like the novel you wrote, despite well-articulated and uniformly scathing…

"Or you really, really like the novel you wrote, despite well-articulated and uniformly scathing takedowns from editors, English professors, literary critics, etc."

This description != a worthless piece of art.

E.L. James is probably the most obvious recent example of someone who is almost universally decried by the above professions, but still writes something that at the very least is enjoyed by a lot of people. However, there are dozens of - often very successful and much-beloved - writers who fit the same description.

Defining quality in art is a very, very difficult proposition.

On a side note, there are plenty of dreadfully-written, insecure, $register_globals - dependent PHP apps out there solving real problems for real people.

Re: How I became an artist

#92

Post by thenomad »

m12k wrote: post #86

One of the takeaways I got from this was that instead of the usual "Follow your dreams no matter what" it should be "Follow your dreams, but be smart about". I think many who take the first advice tend to just hammer their heads at whatever obstacle is blocking whatever seems like the direct to their dreams - and as a result often get smacked over the head with such a dose of cold hard reality that they end up having…

Definitely.

I've been a working artist for 20 years now (filmmaker). One of the biggest advantages I've had in sustaining that career is that I'm pretty damn good with a spreadsheet.

As others have said, it's a long game, and skills that will sustain you through that long game are critically important.

Re: How I became an artist

#93

Post by kirsebaer »

Swizec wrote: post #38
superuser2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some amount of craft may be necessary to produce successful art, but the success/quality of art is not monotonic with the level of difficulty of the craft involved. Very simple, low-skill artworks can be extremely powerful. Artworks that took 20,000 hours of practice can be dull.

It's not about difficulty, it's about mastery. It takes thousands of hours of practice to be able to draw the perfect line. Even if drawing said perfect line took seconds. A large part of mastery also goes beyond the technicalities of expressing, it's also about having a good eye for what is worth expressing and what is mundane/boring/etc. But it basically boils down to: art [of all kinds] is tricky and takes a lot o…

A counter-argument would be that you don't need to have good handwriting to be an effective writer, and you don't need to have good draftsmanship to be an effective artist. "If you can walk, you can dance. If you can talk, you can sing".

See the highly popular /u/Shitty_Watercolour on Reddit or "Get Your War On" comics by Rees, David.

Practicing technique can be nice, but it can also hinder spontaneity and creativity.

The magical inspiration in art is something beyond technique. The way you practice that is to just live your life.

Lots of people hold themselves back from drawing, dancing, and singing because they are afraid of being judged for not having enough technical skill.

Re: How I became an artist

#94

Post by ak39 »

noahbradley wrote: post #47
ak39 wrote: post #24

And this, dear friends, is how Noah Bradley actually became a writer! What an excellent piece. I am reading this to my kids.

I do my best. :) Hope they're inspired! Give 'em plenty of art supplies!

I will, I will!

I want to read your story to my eldest, 16 years old, who says he is struggling to find what he really wants to do with his life (career choices etc). He is a good kid. The truth is, I am going to read that story again mostly for me too.

I didn't know at 16 what I wanted from my life either ... but I spent a good decade in my 20s "going with the flow", rudderless. I wish I had been more awake to my possibilities then. I don't regret those years completely, I became a father when I had him in those years. But ... it would have been nice to be told that your brain's plasticity is more forgiving earlier than later. :-)

You keep painting. And loving it.

Re: How I became an artist

#95

Post by ryan-allen »

gbog wrote: post #89
smtddr wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. That indefensible statement alone is enough reason for a downvote, imho.

It seems to me very defensible that "how I became an artist" cannot be taught by someone who has only a few years behind. "Becoming an artist", for real artists, is a life-long achievement, it takes a lot of struggles, travels (inside and outside), it requires knowing a lot, reading a lot, et cetera. "How I became an artist" from a 20-so is a absurd, risible, as "how to learn Python in 20 mn" confer: http://norvig.co…

My thoughts are that both views are valid. I don't think it'd be difficult to look back and discover that some of the great artists were tortured with what they did. My somewhat cynical view is that anything significant requires great sacrifice and no matter what positive spin you put on it, few great artists got there with an abound of positive emotions.

Getting good sucks. It sucks, a lot.

An anecdote I remember reading of the lives of famous musicians:

"[A fan] once came up to Fritz Kreisler after one of his concerts and said to him, “I’d give my life to play as beautifully as you do.” To which Kreisler replied, “I did.”

Positive spin might feel nice to read in a blog post, but I don't think it reflect the reality of the endeavor.

Also I agree with you, just replying here for, whatever.

Re: How I became an artist

#96

Post by rawTruthHurts »

4ndr3vv wrote: post #82
jackvalentine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't buy a drill, they buy a hole in the wall. People don't buy the best most perfect fancy publishing platform, they buy something that lets them publish their content and move on with their lives. I think the success is pretty self-evident?

Where can you buy holes for your wall?! "People don't want a drill they want a hole in the wall." Sorry for pedantry, but think it helps with the metaphor.

It definitely helps, thanks.

Re: How I became an artist

#97

Post by mari_says »

sombremesa wrote: post #58
gbog wrote: post #41

Most comments seems positive here, nice. I'm a bit less enthusiastic. A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. He can't be an artist because artists are either over fifty or dead, no matter how many times he'll repeat the mantra. One does not choose art among other professional activities: a very few men or women are chosen to become artists and they will be no matter what else they try to do. Also being an arti…

I think your message is steeped in negativity and what little of value there is is lost. Suppose you had the most important message in the world - we would all still downvote you when you put it like that. Now suppose that OP has the least meaningful message in the world - however, it is steeped in positivity. If nothing else, let this be a lesson in how much your attitude matters.

The problem is that art is what a system of galleries and museums establishes as art work. How unfair or not this is I might agree. But artist is not a condition that you can claim. I agree that there is a bit of arrogance, which is a psicological condition that is very tipical in artists, so it should be no problem. The problem is that in this case this work is not only outside the institution but also outside the discourse of art. I'd like to know what message you read here. As someone that has been tought to look at works of art since I have memory I tell you that the only message implied in these pieces is the inner world of the author. I respect it but art is a metadiscourse, art is always about art, or at least provides a means to refer to art history. It can be about literature, take a look at Lovecraft or Allan Moore. Those are artists. The technique is good, even impressive but dificultness is not needed in art. Museums would be filled of ships constructed inside bottles and they are not. So I understand this negativity because it's not only arrogant to claim to be an artist at the age of 20, but to claim it without having been interested yourself in art history much. Art is not about artists, that is some romantic stuff we've been told from 1800 and stoped working 50 years later, until the new media started emphasizing in personalities so insistently. So of course attitude is really important, but I think the one showing the wrong attitude here is the one claiming to be artist. There is nothing wrong in not being an artist.

Re: How I became an artist

#98

Post by mari_says »

vacri wrote: post #67
0624213997 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some realms of art still entertain this definition for art, but you are correct in that the vast majority of modern art is exactly this distinct departure from the notion that one must have an audience. Modern art came about because of the rise of the bourgeoisie, meaning, people of different classes could commission works, artists had more freedom in what they chose to depict, sell, create, etc, instead of being lim…

I remember seeing a doco that was discussing the 'what is art' question. My favourite response was from an eccentric artist/rancher, who had made the three letters A R T in giant vinyl-covered foam blocks, and stacked them against a fence. His opinion on the definition question "What is 'art'?": 'art' is three letters up against a fence.

My favorite definition is in this footage of Gordon Pask speaking of the liberty to adventure, not limited to artists but also very common to sciences. Art and science are ways of questioning or proving asumptions about the world and that requires to asume risks. There is no risk in mastery. https://youtu.be/fifSXXS8fU4

Re: How I became an artist

#99

Post by lectrick »

gbog wrote: post #41

Most comments seems positive here, nice. I'm a bit less enthusiastic. A twenty-so young boy has no lesson to teach. He can't be an artist because artists are either over fifty or dead, no matter how many times he'll repeat the mantra. One does not choose art among other professional activities: a very few men or women are chosen to become artists and they will be no matter what else they try to do. Also being an arti…

> In just finished reading the trial by Kafka for the fourth time

Well, if you weren't bitter and depressed enough after the 1st time, having 4 readings under your belt would go a ways towards explaining the nihilist pessimistic emptiness of your post. When you're done staring into the abyss, the actual meaning that we all have the opportunity to elect to participate in (and which young people still rightfully believe in, stop trying to extinguish it) will still be waiting.

Re: How I became an artist

#100

Post by kaitai »

ArtBot-1 wrote: post #55
Swizec wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about difficulty, it's about mastery. It takes thousands of hours of practice to be able to draw the perfect line. Even if drawing said perfect line took seconds. A large part of mastery also goes beyond the technicalities of expressing, it's also about having a good eye for what is worth expressing and what is mundane/boring/etc. But it basically boils down to: art [of all kinds] is tricky and takes a lot o…

Here's a Flickr stream with lots of art with good to great technique: https://www.flickr.com/photos/7474079@N02/ Boring isn't it? (Interesting as history maybe?) The "what is worth expressing" is where creativity happens. Technique makes you a competent hack. It's not enough for originality. So it's misleading to think it's all art. Technique and originality are different skills. The best artists have lots of both, b…

Interesting litmus test indeed! Some were boring to me, some really interesting -- Monet's painting of a winter day on that page arrested me (and I didn't even identify it as Monet right away) because the way the light came down and reflected off the snow and the clouds was just... amazing. So few artists paint light well. And I noticed myself drawn over and over again to the featured paintings of Galien-Laloue. I like the light again. Bierstadt's paintings are always a little over-the-top but if you can get really close to an original the details are amazing and make you wonder about the time and the tiny people. The paintings of architecture do rather bore me.

My criterion for whether something is art is whether it changes how I see the world. I guess something like Wayne Barlowe's "Wargate" (referenced in a sibling post) doesn't change how I see the world. It's too far removed from my life. But the light in Monet's winter day...

Post reply on HN