←back to thread

Craft software that makes people feel something

(rapha.land)
301 points lukeio | 8 comments | 11 Dec 25 13:45 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
mmooss ◴[11 Dec 25 18:28 UTC] 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 ◴[11 Dec 25 19:32 UTC] 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 #
mmooss ◴[11 Dec 25 21:52 UTC] 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 #
1. irishcoffee ◴[12 Dec 25 01:13 UTC] No.46239710[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 #
2. mbg721 ◴[12 Dec 25 01:14 UTC] No.46239716[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 #
3. corysama ◴[12 Dec 25 02:22 UTC] No.46240176[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.

4. mmooss ◴[12 Dec 25 02:28 UTC] No.46240206[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.

5. mmooss ◴[12 Dec 25 02:28 UTC] No.46240211[source]▶
That was true for all Olympians before they allowed professionals to compete.
6. squigz ◴[12 Dec 25 02:43 UTC] No.46240305[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 #
7. fn-mote ◴[12 Dec 25 02:53 UTC] No.46240352[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.

8. mmooss ◴[12 Dec 25 03:43 UTC] No.46240652[source]▶
In the US, Congress passed a special law restricting the labor rights of minor league baseball players.