Maybe you can't make money doing what you love
sethgodin.typepad.com
sethgodin.typepad.com
I had a girlfriend like this: she was an excellent photographer, had a degree in fine arts with a photography specialty, but didn't want to make money doing it -- she didn't want it to become her job. This discrepancy made her miserable, not only because she generally didn't get to take pictures, and didn't get to make the money she could be making, but also because she wasn't using her degree.
I went to school for CS, not because I love it (though I do at times) but because the market forecast was good, and I wanted to retire early. What I like about programming is the freedom to innovate, to solve problems. I get to solve problems, solve puzzles with my job. That's great. When I get done working, I'll write a book -- that'll be even better.
I think it's enough to work doing something you like, to support what you love.
Also, stop rehashing the same old, 'If you commercialize your art, it stops being satisfying' BS. We knew that forever ago. I think in the connected universe it is easy to to do something you love on the side AND make money from it AND be happy doing it. Like that guy who makes $2k/yr because he sold some photos to iStockphoto 10 years ago.
Not to bring ad hominem into this, but why has Seth become so un-original?
The great artists of the Renaissance were very highly paid. In fact they were probably the best paid craftsmen of the time. And they are hard to beat for magic.
</flamewar>
A) The psychological effect of working for a church/patron is probably not analogous to, say, trying to produce a blog post that makes the front page of Digg. To borrow from Herzberg's two-factor theory, their patronage was more of a hygiene factor than a motivation factor.
B) You're only looking at the best pieces from the best artists. It's likely that the average artist was producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid. In fact probably even the best artists were producing mostly shit in hopes of getting paid.
The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can. Show me an example of shit made by Leonardo or Van Eyck or Brueghel.
It's very well documented that rewards diminish both intrinsic motivation and creativity
In studies where they offer one group of undergrads money to complete some random task and another group does it for free? Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum.
That said, I think the point stands, and that's why there's not a strong correlation between greatness in the arts and salary. The great artistic minds, even when producing stuff that I feel like was below par for their work, were doing so out of a genuine desire to do something important, even if they didn't have a perfect batting average. Similarly, those who were driven by that desire didn't cave just because they weren't commercial successes.
The studies are pretty wide ranging. For example, people paid to wear their seatbelts are less likely to do so. People who are offered money if they lose weight are less successful, and are more likely to gain even more weight. If teachers are offered money if their students improve on a test, the students will do worse on the test. Students who study something in an attempt to get a good grade will have a more superficial understanding of the material than they would otherwise.
"Things work differently at the other end of the expertise spectrum."
Maybe that's true once your work is at the genius level and you don't need any more external validation, but even if so how do you get there? If you've been mastering your craft for twenty years and then you're offered money it might not be damaging, if done right, but being offered money too soon may well harm the average person.
"The great artists couldn't bring themselves to produce shit, any more than great people in any field ever can."
George Lucas.
"George Lucas"
I think that George Lucas has very aptly demonstrated that he is not a great artist. He got lucky with Star Wars. With his next two movies he had the sense to let someone else direct. Then he let the success go to his head.
That last sentence is extremely disingenuous.
I would be like to read the his original argument though.
Citation?
I love computers, UNIX/Linux, scalable architectures, yadda yadda yadda. I work in the field, and am reasonably well compensated, but I've always said "I'd keep doing computers even if I was the one paying."
Doing something you're passionate about for someone else (whether your customer is a manager, or you're self employed and your customer is the one paying) isn't inherently pleasurable if the customer's goals aren't perfectly aligned with yours -- in fact it can be deeply saddening to know there's a better way to accomplish something, if only some business reality (cost, technical constraint) wasn't in the way.
For me, the big win working in my favorite field is that the job is easy -- I have a great pool of contacts, I've spent over 80% of my entire life immersed in the problems and solutions of this field. That said, I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy computing a lot more again if I went back to bagging groceries -- 100% of the computing I'd do would be computing for pleasure, no more chores or building stuff for people that have needs that are different than mine.
Once you cross the line of doing something to pay the bills, instead of doing it for the joy of doing it, then it becomes work. And, work, ultimately sucks.
It also becomes work once you believe you have to turn your hobby into something that makes money (because everyone - especially this site - tells you to find your passion and then make money from it).
Some pursuits are better left intrinsicly rewarding.
HN might just skewed towards those lucky few who are able to make money from things they love. Personally, if I am not doing something I love, it's not worth it.
"If all you get from your job is a paycheck, you're underpaid"
I don't think it's a trade-off if you don't love your job. However, if you truly hate your job - why are you doing it?
I was a workaholic for the longest time and I still am - I am re-applying my workaholic tendencies to outside-the-cube. Software development bankrolls ventures like learning Spanish and Salsa dancing.
Sure, you might not get rich making splatter paintings, but you can still be creative and make money at the same time. People will pay for things that are aesthetically pleasing.
Explains why great artists lived poor financially. But there are always who bring in the genius of AND with art meets living (commercial). They ofcourse are geniuses.
as soon as you focus on your art and leave the money behind, you may just discover that this focus turns out to be the secret of actually breaking through and making money.
thats the meat of the articles, overall good ideas..