> Maybe there is a base level of competence you need to attain before an activity starts being enjoyable for its own sake.
This has been on mind so much. I think that level we call base level is often set by comparison to other skilled people that we look upto o compare our progress against. And of course comparison is a thief of joy and results more in disappointment that not. In activities I've picked, i usually just see if im truly enjoying it, if theres potential depths to explore in the future and then go with the mantra - Disregard everything else. I hope that makes sense.
O man, drawing is something I'd commited to learn as well although I really it has a steep learning curve. But its the same deal with anything no? Gotta keep going through the grind before we can get good at it and the best way that happens is if we can enjoy the process itself. So yeah I guess I'm just agreeing with you :)
>>One thing that often turns me off is seeing others which do that activity for quite some time and are already good at it (I'm 35 years old), while I'm just starting and seem incapable in comparison.
Be the best person you can be and try (it's very hard) to stop comparing yourself. How can you be anything more than your best? Do it because its good for you or you enjoy it, not because you are awesome or not awesome at it.
> But what if he tried to pick up playing the flute? How about drawing comics? Competitive swimming? Investing?
Having seen exactly 2 of your examples in real life, particularly people who had no experience and no interest in painting or playing an instrument until their 40s, a few years of persistence and targeted practice made them better than me after a lifetime of “casual play”.
I might have to put in less time to “get better than them” if I really sat down and tried for a year, but I’m not sure that matters in the way you’re thinking
>will be able to achieve little in his ‘hobby’ due to lack of time and a desire to not go overboard)
Huh, no, you get 80% result for 20% effort. Diminishing returns are actually a big problem. Drawing may be not innate, but artistry is innate: even if I learn how to draw, I won't be able to draw anything, because I have no idea what to draw.
> You think you can see things, but what you are really doing is recognizing things. Any normal adult has the motor skills to make a controlled mark.
I have reasonably nimble fingers and at least average overall motor control, and really cannot do this. I got pretty good at drawing a handful of things as a kid by just repeating the same pattern every time, but even on those my lines were just awful. I'm sure I could get better at it with tons of drilling (and probably just starting over from scratch, technique-wise—I expect I'd have to totally re-train the way I do the entire activity, to fix whatever's wrong) but a little drawing here and there with lots of attention to trying to fix that has done nothing. I cannot make a remotely straight line of any length at all (an inch would be pushing my abilities, and I'd probably fail like half the time). Circles are right out. I have a good enough eye for perspective that I can make useful and recognizable sketches for e.g. home projects, but they look like a 2-year-old drew them because the lines are so bad.
Step 1 for me absolutely would be learning how to make marks that are anywhere near my intention.
> The amount of skill that you have in a certain area is proportional to the amount of work that you put into it. There is no such thing as a 'creative' or 'technical' type. The reason I was bad at art starting out is the same reason we are bad at anything starting out. One day, I sat down and put in hours of serious work, refusing to stop until I liked the results. And, gradually, I got better at art.
I tell my son there is no such thing as talent, just understanding. This keeps the As coming in, dude is awesome
> All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste.
On the whole, I agree with his sentiment that hard work will get you success, but the idea he magically started out with some kind of innate talent for telling whether or not things are good is the same type of illogical thinking he's talking about being discouraging to beginners.
> why does one have to necessarily follow a particular set of rules?
I find rules are an excellent way to quickly get up to a reasonable level. One can discover these rules by trial and error, but this takes time and practice.
When one is comfortable working within these rules, they can then be broken for effect.
I think most great artists started as an apprentice, before becoming the master.
> The separation of talent and skill is one of the greatest misunderstood concepts for people who are trying to excel, who have dreams, who want to do things. Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft.
- Will Smith
This kind of exploration, banging your head against the wall, is exactly "beating on your craft".
No matter if the result is crappy by any metric, trying to wrap one's head around things and producing output - any output - over and over is oh so important.
And dare I say talent without practice is useless and a waste, because one's going to stay in the comfort zone, and usually get cocky about it, whereas relentless practice teaches humility.
> Hobbies I hate. By definition I'm an amateur and I don't perform well.
Depends. If no one else is doing that particular thing, then by definition you're the world expert. It doesn't matter if there are other people who could hypothetically do it better; they're not in the game.
I have a current hobby that most able-bodied technically minded people could do better than me (genetic joint condition), but as far as I can tell I'm accomplishing things no one else has.
>> I haven't found much of anything in life that you can't get better at by trying again and again.
I used to think the same way until I tried learning to play guitar. Have been trying it for a year now and I seriously question if I will ever be able to do it with reasonable proficiency. (So far holding on though.)
> If I could spend some time with a world-renowned expert in anything I don't want them to waste time teaching me the basics. I can get that anywhere. I want to know the thing that elevates them above everyone else.
In my experience, the thing that usually elevates experts above everyone else is their mastery of the basics. You can’t really let your creativity have free reign until the basics are so ingrained that they always go right, and usually intermediate practitioners’ failures can be traced to technical rather than conceptual issues.
> If you tell someone that, despite their initial lack of talent, they can be "superb" at anything they want, and 10,000 hours later they are still mediocre at best, don't you think it would be frustrating to have wasted that much time?
Who are these mediocre people who have put in 10k hours of deliberate practice? I can't recall anyone I'd call mediocre who's put in more than a thousand hours at something.
> It legitimately took me 5 years to get really good and I still sometimes cut myself
I feel like that some people (myself included at times) just like to develop skills with a steep learning curve regardless of how much benefit it actually incurs.
This has been on mind so much. I think that level we call base level is often set by comparison to other skilled people that we look upto o compare our progress against. And of course comparison is a thief of joy and results more in disappointment that not. In activities I've picked, i usually just see if im truly enjoying it, if theres potential depths to explore in the future and then go with the mantra - Disregard everything else. I hope that makes sense.
O man, drawing is something I'd commited to learn as well although I really it has a steep learning curve. But its the same deal with anything no? Gotta keep going through the grind before we can get good at it and the best way that happens is if we can enjoy the process itself. So yeah I guess I'm just agreeing with you :)
reply