Most active commenters
  • mmooss(7)
  • ChrisMarshallNY(3)

←back to thread

301 points lukeio | 24 comments | | HN request time: 0.634s | source | bottom
1. mmooss ◴[] No.46235044[source]
> created solely for myself; I never had the intention of making it [...] mainstream

This is how many artists have worked. They make something for themself, and one day they show it to someone else ... or they just get the urge to share it more widely, often without the hope that anyone will really be interested. Or they keep it for themself.

I think Tolkien is in that group, for example. But don't get the wrong idea from an extreme outlier: much of the time, others aren't interested, or not many are. Sometimes, nobody is interested until after you've forgotten about it or passed away. Who cares? That's one reason you need to make it for yourself. Also, I think that otherwise it provides much less expression and insight into another person, which is at the core of art. There is a fundamental human need to 'externalize the imagination'.

replies(5): >>46235948 #>>46236061 #>>46236451 #>>46236833 #>>46238193 #
2. alsetmusic ◴[] No.46235948[source]
Several years ago, I wrote an angry email to loved ones about something I’d seen in national news (USA) about my city. A friend replied saying that he thought I should submit it to a local paper. Ended up as an op-ed. Not a major claim to fame, but I was still pleased that someone cared enough about my words to publish.
3. nospice ◴[] No.46236061[source]
> This is how many artists have worked. They make something for themself, and one day they show it to someone else

That model depended on personal wealth or (more often) patronage. Because the supply of wealthy patrons was limited, it meant that you had fewer artists pursuing their visions. Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.

Now, we democratized access to patronage, but it means that to support yourself, you need to deliver what gets you the most clicks, not what your soul craves.

I sort of wish we still had both models, but I think that wealthy patrons have gone out of fashion in favor of spending money on crypto and AI.

replies(2): >>46236457 #>>46237716 #
4. samdoesnothing ◴[] No.46236451[source]
Kafka is another.
5. eikenberry ◴[] No.46236457[source]
> That model depended on personal wealth or (more often) patronage.

"They make something for themself, .."

For the vast majority of people this means doing it on the side, in addition to their day-job. I've known a lot of artists in my time and we all have day jobs. You do art for yourself because you love to create, not expecting to make any significant money on it.

replies(1): >>46236616 #
6. nospice ◴[] No.46236616{3}[source]
Right, which works great if your daytime job is being a professor at Oxford, but maybe less so if your only opportunity is farm labor or other physically exhausting job.

Today, more people have the opportunity to dabble in art than ever before.

replies(2): >>46237508 #>>46238094 #
7. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.46236833[source]
> or passed away

A certain one-eared Dutchman comes to mind...

replies(2): >>46237668 #>>46239499 #
8. frutiger ◴[] No.46237508{4}[source]
He started writing his stories long before he was a Professor. It was while he was a young man fighting in the First World War.
replies(1): >>46239971 #
9. mmooss ◴[] No.46237668[source]
Somewhere online I saw photos of where The Dutchman lived while creating some of the paintings - dirty, dreary, lifeless, depresssing places. To see that all around and to imagine and create the mini-worlds in those painting - with their vivid, wild use of color and texture - is wondrous and wonderful.
replies(1): >>46237846 #
10. mmooss ◴[] No.46237716[source]
There are plenty of impovrished, struggling artists - it's a cliche - and especially unknown ones creating for themselves.

> Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.

That doesn't mean you can't create art. Anthony Trollope worked for the post office. Einstein, who externalized imagination in somewhat different way and attributed much to art, was a patent clerk. New York and LA are filled with waitstaff-artists. A friend hired a moving company that almost exclusively hired artists as movers (I know - they weren't too skinny?).

replies(1): >>46239710 #
11. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.46237846{3}[source]
I think he sort of lived in his own world. He was def pretty neurodivergent, in some way.

I [sort of] remember a movie, once, that had a kid basically doing a "Don Quixote" on the world, where his vision of everything was kind of wondrous.

Don't remember it well enough to recall its name, though...

12. mrec ◴[] No.46238094{4}[source]
Personally I've found it much easier to sustain creative stuff on the side while doing a non-knowledge-based job than a knowledge-based one. Mental exhaustion is much more of a drag than physical. (Though the knowledge-based hours were longer too, which I'm sure was a factor.)
13. lutharvaughn ◴[] No.46238193[source]
If you are actually making it for yourself then it shouldn’t matter. I think sometimes people tell themselves they are doing it for them, but then they start thinking “well what would so and so think”. I know I’ve done it, but once I started actually making things for me, I could feel the difference.
replies(1): >>46241972 #
14. ChrisMarshallNY ◴[] No.46239499[source]
I have to assume that someone has no idea what I was talking about, and thought that I was making some kind of ethnic slur. Sheesh. What do they teach, these days? Do people think Moby Dick is some kind of STD?

For elucidation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh

He died a pauper, but his work is some of the most valuable in history.

replies(1): >>46240235 #
15. irishcoffee ◴[] No.46239710{3}[source]
I sincerely never understood the “starving artist” thing. Everyone needs to be able to provide for themselves. The whole starving artist thing always came across (to me) as someone who refused to work because… art?

Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career. Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.

You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.

replies(5): >>46239716 #>>46240176 #>>46240206 #>>46240305 #>>46240352 #
16. mbg721 ◴[] No.46239716{4}[source]
You do sometimes hear of Olympians in the non-big-pro-league sports whose families make enormous financial and lifestyle sacrifices to let them train and compete.
replies(1): >>46240211 #
17. nicbou ◴[] No.46239971{5}[source]
Right, which works great if your daytime job is fighting in the trenches, but maybe less so if your only opportunity is software development or other mentally exhausting job.
18. corysama ◴[] No.46240176{4}[source]
There are definitely athletes who spend their entire prime years working in the minor leagues trying to get their big shot in the majors and never quite getting there.

It’s a life of constant travel, crazy hours and very little money.

19. mmooss ◴[] No.46240206{4}[source]
Those are big assumptions ...

> Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career.

Says who? Are you an artist? Many artists say - and I'm know nothing to doubt them - that they can give up art like you can give up food.

> Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.

No idea where you get that about art. Many complain that a lot of shlock rises to the 'top'. And how do we know about the cream that didn't rise? Many artists aren't discovered until they're old or dead - Van Gogh being the over-repeated example. But even Van Gogh!

It's easier in sports - you can win on the field; there's frequent, objective evidence. But that applies to clearly superior elite, who have access to training. With access Messi would probably be on top regardless, but the number of Messis is a statistical error. People who are professional-level but lower down the pyramid, whose names you don't recognize but who make up the overwhelming majority of athletes, often say it depends mostly on relationships. There are plenty of people like them, and if they get a job depends on their relationships with coaches, agents, etc. You hear about athletes that seem perfectly capable, some even good or very good, but getting no calls.

20. mmooss ◴[] No.46240211{5}[source]
That was true for all Olympians before they allowed professionals to compete.
21. mmooss ◴[] No.46240235{3}[source]
No complaining about downvotes! lol

Yes, sometimes I can't even guess why. Drunk and missed the target? Those little arrows are poor GUI.

22. squigz ◴[] No.46240305{4}[source]
> You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.

I mean, just because this isn't a trope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you know anything about trying to get into pro sports of literally any type, you'll know that it's a lot of sacrifice for a long time. Most athletes who aren't literally the best in the world aren't paid a huge amount, and have to travel a lot to attend events to make that money.

replies(1): >>46240652 #
23. fn-mote ◴[] No.46240352{4}[source]
> You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.

Go to the 'hood and see the one returning pro ball player interacting with forty no-money kids trying their hardest to make it.

All of the kids would be better off pursuing a higher-probability-of-success career (including unionized manual labor), but that's not what's happening.

Those are some starving athletes.

24. mmooss ◴[] No.46240652{5}[source]
In the US, Congress passed a special law restricting the labor rights of minor league baseball players.