i don't like pigeon-holing the definition of 'artist'...i don't like it at all.
kevin, an artist.
kevin, an artist.
The Artist's Secret
- Thread starter RemusShepherd
- Start date
- Status
I'm not wild about the use of the word 'art' either but I get just as antsy when people talk about the 'craft' of writing and it isn't a science - at least not the way I do it.
I'm not sure the NYT tells you much about the particular ways your own work is missing the mark for commercial success and just copying the last big thing never works. Publishers are regularly wrong about what it is that works in the mainstream so it is a reasonable to wonder what in your own work has reasonable appeal and what turns people off.
Usually what one person loves another person hates, but for some books a huge number of people love that same something. Why? I sure as hell don't know.
I'm not sure the NYT tells you much about the particular ways your own work is missing the mark for commercial success and just copying the last big thing never works. Publishers are regularly wrong about what it is that works in the mainstream so it is a reasonable to wonder what in your own work has reasonable appeal and what turns people off.
Usually what one person loves another person hates, but for some books a huge number of people love that same something. Why? I sure as hell don't know.
I don't know that it is particularly self serving 'Abnormal' is at least as negative as it is positive.
I'm so glad you posted this quote, RemusShepherd. It's SO true. I come from a family of artists (most of them are visual artists -- painters, in most cases) and I grew up observing the weird world of art-as-business. You DO have to think of it as a product if you want to make a career of it.
It's perfectly valid to keep it as self-expression only, of course, but for most artists, that doesn't lead to a viable career. As long as one is aware of that fact, one should be okay.
It's perfectly valid to keep it as self-expression only, of course, but for most artists, that doesn't lead to a viable career. As long as one is aware of that fact, one should be okay.
It's perfectly valid to keep it as self-expression only, of course, but for most artists, that doesn't lead to a viable career. As long as one is aware of that fact, one should be okay.
yes...and there are a great number of artists who purposely do not seek out artistry as a viable career, yet are still passionate about art. myself among them.
There isn't a one true brain type for writing. Many writers have entirely normal brain chemistry (having a quirky interest does not mean there's anything unusual about the brain chemistry). Some don't, but not all in the same way as each other. My issues (as far as they impact writing) are mainly centred around difficulties with language. It makes writing harder for me, rather than easier.
But for what it's worth, the way I dealt with it was entirely normal. I read a lot of books and practised writing.
The impression I've got from your other threads is you have difficulty understanding and acting on critiques. So even when problem areas are pointed out, you can't see them. You might find it helpful to analyse other critique threads (where the work being critiqued isn't yours), to see how the critiques relate to the piece.
But for what it's worth, the way I dealt with it was entirely normal. I read a lot of books and practised writing.
The impression I've got from your other threads is you have difficulty understanding and acting on critiques. So even when problem areas are pointed out, you can't see them. You might find it helpful to analyse other critique threads (where the work being critiqued isn't yours), to see how the critiques relate to the piece.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 112
- Age
- 56
- Location
- Midwest
- Website
- remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
Emphasis mine. It's not a matter of the topic one writes about. It's a question of what relates to people in the mainstream. The concepts that the artist relates to may not be the same as what triggers the readers.
I think music is the best analogy. Someone who is tone deaf might play a song that sounds great to him, but nobody else will appreciate it. That tone deaf musician has to learn to match his perceptions to his audience's. The subject matter of the song he plays has nothing to do with it.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 112
- Age
- 56
- Location
- Midwest
- Website
- remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
I don't think Adams was implying that artists have odd brain chemistry. He's saying that creative people are odd, they're unusual in human society, and if for no other reason than that see the world slightly differently than normal people do.
Of course, many of them are just undeniably odd.
Was this directed to me? I don't get much in the way of critique, but when I do I'm grateful as hell and I act on almost all the advice I get. But if you want to talk about that let's take it to private messages. I'm more interested in how people modify their creative process to take in account public taste. It sounds as if most writers read an awful lot, and their reading material influences what they write.
Sorry Remus I didn't say that you have attributions in a muddle probably because I always screw up quotes.
The song, Take the A Train, is a snappy little Jazz piece that just about everybody likes. But, if those same people listen to some pure Jazz, they aren't going to like it. It will sound like a cacophony of notes to them that only resembles music because of the instruments used.
Humor, visual art, music, and writing, are things that are very personal. (I do not understand, nor do I care to understand impressionist art. It's all finger painting to me.)Who is to know what will "strike a chord" with certain people. Some things are universal, other things, like your regulator example, are not (I didn't get it btw). You will know, through experience, what those things are. Some, you'll know are risky, but worth the payoff if they work. Others, you should know are totally out there and only a few will get them. Other stuff, yeah, you know most everybody will get it. So, my opinion is the only way to find out is to do it. I bet most successful stand-up comedians constantly hone their sets based on fan reactions. The first time the do a certain gag probably isn't as funny as the 50th time they do it.
Remus,
I guess I'm coming to the conclusion you quoted a guy who was an oddball who happens to write. That's not the same as saying writers are odd, different, or whatever else you like, and I still say writing is like anything else; sure over time you may learn enough about it that it changes you, but there is no mystical "artist's brain" because writing changes you anymore than there is a mystical "cop's brain" or "biologist's brain" because over time those jobs change how you see things.
Writing is a job. Many people, with many skill sets, come to it. I think only a certain type insists on the need to elevate it into something special, and a great many writers simply say it's work, like most anything else.
I guess I'm coming to the conclusion you quoted a guy who was an oddball who happens to write. That's not the same as saying writers are odd, different, or whatever else you like, and I still say writing is like anything else; sure over time you may learn enough about it that it changes you, but there is no mystical "artist's brain" because writing changes you anymore than there is a mystical "cop's brain" or "biologist's brain" because over time those jobs change how you see things.
Writing is a job. Many people, with many skill sets, come to it. I think only a certain type insists on the need to elevate it into something special, and a great many writers simply say it's work, like most anything else.
The trouble I always have with these kinds of quotes is it gets very easy for people to begin convincing themselves that they are so "odd", the rest of the world doesn't get them. This can very easily slide into excuses for why they have not achieved whatever they are attempting to achieve.
There's no such thing as normality. As Bo Burnham (that fella with the YouTube songs) says, the average human has one fallopian tube. Normal is taking everybody and finding the point in the middle.
There's no such thing as normality. As Bo Burnham (that fella with the YouTube songs) says, the average human has one fallopian tube. Normal is taking everybody and finding the point in the middle.
lmao...I need to remember that one.
I guess you summed up my feelings; everyone is different and to start to try to classify writers as a "special" different seems like a handy crutch, but the sort of garbage that can actually get in the way of doing well. There's plenty of folks who have used the excuse they're "different" to avoid revisions because the world is too dumb to understand, or to avoid filling pages for a few days, or whatever else--writing is a job, plain and simple. and just like you don't get to be a teacher or surgeon and then go "but I'm special, a delicate flower" and expect special treatment or try to build your own pedestal, you can't, or shouldn't, do it in writing.
I will say, whole-heartedly, writing is not that different than science in that there's 2 types in both fields:
1. The ones who are telling everyone how they're changing the world (coffee-shop artistes and first-year grad students)
2. the ones who actually are changing the world (long-running, successful authors and heads of large labs)
The ones who actually are doing tend to talk a lot more about it just being work, that someone learns to do and hopefully do well. the others waste a lot of effort in trying to convince others it is something bigger or more mysterious, instead of doing the damn job.
1. The ones who are telling everyone how they're changing the world (coffee-shop artistes and first-year grad students)
2. the ones who actually are changing the world (long-running, successful authors and heads of large labs)
The ones who actually are doing tend to talk a lot more about it just being work, that someone learns to do and hopefully do well. the others waste a lot of effort in trying to convince others it is something bigger or more mysterious, instead of doing the damn job.[/QUOTE]
I think there's some truth in that but I'm not sure that was the concern of the OP.It isn't easy to find things with broad appeal and the more offbeat your personal interests, or atypical your own personality the more awkward that might be. Many successful writers are quite weird though and they manage it.
I talk most about writing when I'm working oddly enough as I find it helps to get me started. Some elements of writing still feel quite mysterious to me and while I dislike people who sitting around being all artistic all over the place I'm not sure that everyone who wants to talk about 'art' necessarily falls into that category.
2. the ones who actually are changing the world (long-running, successful authors and heads of large labs)
The ones who actually are doing tend to talk a lot more about it just being work, that someone learns to do and hopefully do well. the others waste a lot of effort in trying to convince others it is something bigger or more mysterious, instead of doing the damn job.[/QUOTE]
I think there's some truth in that but I'm not sure that was the concern of the OP.It isn't easy to find things with broad appeal and the more offbeat your personal interests, or atypical your own personality the more awkward that might be. Many successful writers are quite weird though and they manage it.
I talk most about writing when I'm working oddly enough as I find it helps to get me started. Some elements of writing still feel quite mysterious to me and while I dislike people who sitting around being all artistic all over the place I'm not sure that everyone who wants to talk about 'art' necessarily falls into that category.
Considering that Scott Adams is a humorist, I suspect he was being a bit tongue in cheek with his choice of words (abnormal, freak). For those who don't know who he is, Adams draws the comic strip Dilbert. He isn't discussing writing as a high, literary art. When Adams discusses "artists" he means that in the most general term possible.
This reminds me of a quote.
Albert Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
I don't think writers are particularly odd, brainwise. I believe that everybody hides some really off-the-wall thoughts in their head - it's just that writers, unlike most others, are faced with the challenge of communicating those thoughts.
Does that make sense?
That's what I think, anyway.
Albert Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
I don't think writers are particularly odd, brainwise. I believe that everybody hides some really off-the-wall thoughts in their head - it's just that writers, unlike most others, are faced with the challenge of communicating those thoughts.
Does that make sense?
That's what I think, anyway.
Through my special mind-reading binoculars.
But no, seriously, I have some non-writer friends who share some weird ideas and thoughts with me... I often wish they didn't.
But no, seriously, I have some non-writer friends who share some weird ideas and thoughts with me... I often wish they didn't.
- Status