The Death of the Artist

[Jungle]

An interesting read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...he-birth-of-the-creative-entrepreneur/383497/

But one of the most conspicuous things about today’s young creators is their tendency to construct a multiplicity of artistic identities. You’re a musician and a photographer and a poet; a storyteller and a dancer and a designer—a multiplatform artist, in the term one sometimes sees. Which means that you haven’t got time for your 10,000 hours in any of your chosen media. But technique or expertise is not the point. The point is versatility. Like any good business, you try to diversify.

This is a problem for a lot of INTPs because of our rampant Ne. But this article argues that it is actually a problem for the entire concept of art, because the way society is changing now means that there will no longer be experts who have really put in the time to master their chosen field.

The new paradigm is also likely to alter the shape of the ensuing career. Just as everyone, we’re told, will have five or six jobs, in five or six fields, during the course of their working life, so will the career of the multiplatform, entrepreneurial artist be more vagrant and less cumulative than under the previous models. No climactic masterwork of deep maturity, no King Lear or Faust, but rather many shifting interests and directions as the winds of market forces blow you here or there.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. The conclusion I'm coming to is that it makes sense for people who are serious about art to go back to the old school paradigm of becoming an artisan/expert in one field, as tough as that may be for an INTP. That doesn't necessarily mean shutting down Ne entirely, but just relegating some of the more divergent interests to hobby status and making an effort to cultivate one single type of expertise over the course of many years.

 

[computerhxr]

By working on multiple skills you are becoming better at other skills that you are not even practicing. For example... learning to paint may improve your photography skills.

 

[Puffy]

I don't think you can scrap the 10,000 hours rule if you really want to master anything, let alone consider yourself a serious artist, high levels of creativity is simply achieved through continual related effort. It might just be necessary to adapt it and re-define the notion of 'apprenticeship' (as the 10,000 hours process) to modern circumstances, in such a way that you integrate your diverse learning under a common purpose.

I don't think going into diverse areas in itself determines that you won't attain mastery, Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius & a polymath as an example, what matters is more to do with direction: that you don't just stumble around being pulled in all directions by the arbitrary whims of fate, never making connections or building anything from the various things you do. Which is basically the kind of chaff that modern circumstances & education leaves most people as really.

What would make sense as underlying mastery and genius to me is an active telos or will (destiny) that subverts and steers its own course through fate and circumstances, continually re-making events as its own epiphany (Barthes' jouissance.) Its fed by perpetually integrating, systemising and making serendipitous connections no matter how diverse the fields, each of these a relational event in which it constantly renews itself.

So you can learn dancing, photography, story-telling, design, etc: but in defining your own apprenticeship you learn these things according to the extent that they can become different angles revealing and developing the same process: that process itself is the 10,000 hours, not the individual skills it incorporates. If there's no traditional pre-set apprenticeship to go into, you have to define it yourself with your intuition as your mentor.

(I would say the above and what I've read on 10,000 hours etc always reeks to me of Ni. It seems likely that Ne has its own ideal process.)

 

[Jungle]

So you can learn dancing, photography, story-telling, design, etc: but in defining your own apprenticeship you learn these things according to the extent that they can become different angles revealing and developing the same process: that process itself is the 10,000 hours, not the individual skills it incorporates.

This is an intriguing angle. But what would be an example of a 'process' that you could master at such an abstract level? Like, for example, the process of self-expression? Because that still really requires mastery of a particular craft in order to showcase the self-expression, or at least it does if you want to achieve creative excellence.

Or are you talking about being an ideas guy, i.e. a creative problem solver across many different disciplines? I used to work with a guy like this and he was quite a liability because he would attempt to shoehorn the particular subject at hand into his understanding of universal principles. You can end up becoming an ideologue. I'm not saying some people aren't genuinely good at multiple disciplines, but they are very rare - I suspect even among INTPs.

My instinct is that INTPs are happiest when they can go the distance with one single medium that contains a wide range of Ne possiblities within it. This is what appeals to me about writing.

 

[Jungle]

By working on multiple skills you are becoming better at other skills that you are not even practicing. For example... learning to paint may improve your photography skills.

To some extent that's true, but you are not going to actually master a skill just by working on other similar skills. There will come a time when you need to dive deep into it.

I see what you're saying though. I think this kind of medium switching is particularly useful if you are in a creative funk with something. Let's say you are a photographer but you feel like you have hit a wall in terms of your enthusiasm and growth. So then you switch over to painting for a couple of weeks, and when you come back to photography you have a new spark of inspiration.

But over the course of the year you would still have spent 95% of your time on photography, with the 5% of time spent on painting to keep things interesting and offer a new perspective.

 

[computerhxr]

To some extent that's true, but you are not going to actually master a skill just by working on other similar skills. There will come a time when you need to dive deep into it.

I see what you're saying though. I think this kind of medium switching is particularly useful if you are in a creative funk with something. Let's say you are a photographer but you feel like you have hit a wall in terms of your enthusiasm and growth. So then you switch over to painting for a couple of weeks, and when you come back to photography you have a new spark of inspiration.

But over the course of the year you would still have spent 95% of your time on photography, with the 5% of time spent on painting to keep things interesting and offer a new perspective.

In weight lifting, your maximum gains come from compound movements and 30/90 day cycles. You would hit a plateau every 90 days and muscles would start to atrophy to become more efficient. Even in short bursts pyramid sets are the most effective.

Assuming that your brain is like a muscle...

Then compound movements would be like exercising multiple skills.

Isolated movements would be like focusing on a single skill which is good for building a single muscle which is part of the compound group.

The 30/60/90 day cycles (P90x) would be like focusing on one group for 30 days at a time, and then switching, and then switching again. Then there is a period of break where you carbo-load (recharge your batteries).

A pyramid set would be like a short burst of focused mental energy. You would cycle in beaks, start off easy, work your way up, followed by a cool-down exercise.

You hit plateaus and can no longer grow. Growth is more complicated and extends beyond a single domain. If you focus on one thing too much, you will burn out and your brain will atrophy. Neuroplasticity is a function of the training your brain goes through.

The reason that I am part of a forum is so that I can find off-topics to think about. It leads me to discovering cross-domain associations that many people are too narrowly focused to see. Growth and expansion happens in multiple dimensions. Having depth but no breadth is only a hindrance. Even having knowledge of body building can help you have a deeper understanding of the brain. Case and point!

 

[Jungle]

@computerhxr

You are preaching to the converted with the weightlifting analogy! I am personally a big fan of kettlebells for the compound movements. I am also big on pyramid sets when I do dumbbells. The holy grail for me is being able to burn out a muscle lifting something like 5kg at the end of the pyramid. The macho guys at the gym would never dream of lifting such a small weight, but that's their loss. Pyramids are great.

But the thing is, the whole project of getting into shape and maintaining a healthy body is in itself one long term project that requires commitment. What you're saying is that the muscles grow better if you constantly surprise them and mix up your schedule - and I agree -but to maintain a healthy body you also need to keep going with the practices, regardless of whatever changes you make to the rhythm and variety of the work.

It seems to me that almost all major achievements require utilising both depth and breadth at some point in the process.

 

[computerhxr]

@computerhxr

You are preaching to the converted with the weightlifting analogy!

It seems to me that almost all major achievements require utilising both depth and breadth at some point in the process.

Yes. I mention this many times if you read my other posts. Knowledge is like many balloons that are filled with water. You can fill one until it takes up all of the space in your head, or you can fill them up evenly. Having a few large balloons is a good thing because they allow you to have something to revert to in the case of a conflict.

Again, with weight lifting if you overbuild a muscle in your leg for example. When you're walking it will over power the other muscles so that the others never get used. When this happens, the others begin to atrophy and the muscles become more exaggerated in comparison.

When this happens in the brain, assuming that it works the same as a muscle, you would be allowing a single muscle to make the decision. This is like picking up a glass of water using your quads. It just doesn't make sense, it's ineffective, and very inefficient. We call this a bias, a frame, or a filter.

The body will constantly try to adapt to its surroundings. If you only challenge legs and arms, then you will have a weak core. Then dead-lifts will snap you in half even though your legs may be capable of pushing the weight. It's dangerous and stupid. Compound is balanced and will allow everything to work more effectively.

Haha, I could go on and on about the brain based on what I know about the body and body-building. I figured it was a good example because it demonstrates my point. When there is something that I don't know about the brain, I try to understand how it would work if it was a muscle, and then it makes sense. Then I'm capable of depth in other areas of thought.