Old Masters and Young Geniuses
kottke.org
kottke.org
The first is immediate and ex nihilo, the execution of a clearly defined idea that is fundamental to the artist's way of thinking. The second is slow and incremental, a blind walk through an enormous search space, until the artist finds something that resonates with them for reasons they can't properly explain.
I could probably make some sort of startup vs. 37Signals analogy here, but my heart's not in it, so I'll leave it to someone else.
Draft: http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
When I first read it I remarked that he was going after too easy a target -- surely nobody would take this stuff seriously. And yet, since then, all sorts of people have.
Once you look, you find that the theory corresponds much more nicely to reality than the theory of genius commonly held: namely, that early success is a good predictor of later, great works. From what I know of history, in mathematics, art, architecture, music, physics, leadership, hacking, dance, there truly are distinct examples of prodigies and late bloomers. And it's enlightening to hear how he describes the difference in creative approach. For example, when I was a kid, the production of my work was only a hindrance. I had a concept or idea or visualization that I wanted to communicate, and I would tell people, literally, that I wish only that I had 'a projector in my head'.
But many people, who's work I've come to respect deeply, rely instead on the resistance of their medium, the feedback of an audience, the taste of what they create, rely upon pursuing little accidents they stumble upon along the way as clues to help them find the form they seek. And I can tell just how different it is from a conceptual approach, and how patient and observant and diligent one must be to achieve its mastery.
I suppose I was a little condescending though. I'm sorry.
In my experience the single greatest determinant of the quality of my work is the level of involvement/effort/passion I invest in it. I definitely subscribe to the 1% inspiration 99% perspiration school.
It's easier to see it (and go with it) for a less experienced person, who is less invested in the status quo and less risk averse. At other times, the same young person's risks would achieve little.
OTOH, anyone who is actually there, who actually does it, who is an instrument of a revolution, should be celebrated as if they created it from nothing. Because if we don't encourage it, we'll have less of it. And any person, no matter what their achievement, can be dismissed as a mere agent of the environment - an inhuman and nihilistic view.
However, I think that is wrong. Einstein was obviously a huge genius, but with an IQ of 160, I calculate there are currently about 9 million (=3 billion * .003) people walking the earth with higher ones. The stars have to be properly aligned so that it is possible to make such an advance. It is no coincidence that Einstein's discoveries were made so soon after other physicists make the contributions necessary for them. If he hadn't done it, it would have been somebody else.
If I recall correctly, Gladwell starts off the night by telling the stories of Fleetwood Mac vs The Eagles. Fleetwood Mac created 13 (?) albums before they got a hit. The Eagles first album was a smash.
I'm going to guess it's a book with interesting ideas that is driven primarily by theory and anecdote.
The book sounds interesting.