←back to thread

301 points lukeio | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.847s | source
Show context
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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. nospice ◴[] No.46236616[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 #
3. frutiger ◴[] No.46237508[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 #
4. mrec ◴[] No.46238094[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.)
5. nicbou ◴[] No.46239971{3}[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.