Don't forget to watch the other parts of the interview as well, it's great stuff. Part two especially should also resonate with everyone who does something creative .
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCJFAGEuJM (common pitfalls of making stories; be yourself; what's interesting isn't only your take of things, it's seeing you interact with other people)
OT, but I've been listening to TLA for a few years now, and I had created a completely different image of Ira Glass in my mind. Watching these videos is like seeing a stranger talking with Ira Glass's voice.
The one valuable key I have found to becoming better at your craft is to improve your identity. I have been studying accelerated learning for many, many years. How we identify with what we are doing has a dramatic impact on our performance and ability to learn. Identity is one of those strong beliefs we hold about ourselves and our capabilities.
Writing code is the best and only way to improve. But as everyone is aware this does not guarantee you become a better programmer. Over time I think everyone does to some extent but some become better quicker. What is the difference? I believe it is what we believe we can do.
I have taught many people how to play guitar. I always start by teaching them the basics and looking for my opportunity to convince them that they are now a ‘guitarist’. Because they will never continue and fall in love with it until they can find some way to identify with it.
I have found a lot of books on the subject but most rightly titled books seemed to have only tips and tricks. Some are really good but don't really hit the sweet spot for me.
This is very true. I think that a good taste is always ahead of one's works, almost by definition. I've never heard of an artist or a programmer who could just do exactly whatever they envisioned instead of a feeble attempt only.
(I bet Leonardo was never too happy with the smile of that little Mona Lisa either and probably couldn't really put his finger on what it was that he really wanted but couldn't just do.)
The counterpoint is that in order to live at least a relatively enjoyable life you will have to learn to cut yourself some slack. You have to have somebody, preferably yourself, to tell you that "This is enough effort; this is good enough for now and given your skills you've done well." Not that you could ever give up on your taste but I think that the acceptance of "I'm not good enough yet for what I want but that's okay because I haven't given up either" is what will eventually propel you to eventually accomplish even better works.
All my attempts are terrible compared to what I imagined, even if I'm trying to be practical. Some of my attempts work themselves out to be better or different than what I imagined. Its a crapshoot.
There are a lot of creative things I've quit on that I probably shouldn't have. I think in the end we need to embrace and be compassionate with inner noob. Sure, he's not good and he gets odd stares from non-creative people, but in the end he's the guy who blossoms into the guy who everyone dismisses as an "overnight success" or "natural talent." Everyone forgets how incredibly difficult and demoralizing it is to waste time producing sub-par work just for the off-chance that you might get good at something.
"...couldn't really put his finger on what it was that he really wanted but couldn't just do."
As an amusing literal interpretation of your metaphor, IIRC Leonardo actually painted the shadows around the Mona Lisa's mouth using his finger, which enabled his style of sfumato shading. So I suppose he was putting his finger on it...
The quote from _why uses "taste[s]" as a substitute for "likes / dislikes" whereas Ira Glass talks about "taste" (singular) as "the ability to appreciate greatness".
Isn't it great to be disappointed when comparing your code against others? It gives you a set of higher standards to aim for and is preferrable to being the best coder from the small pool of people you work with
I hear what cageface is saying but you are right, and it's definitely a better mindset. I much rather have lots of good code to learn from and get inspired by, than only reading disposable code from uninspired corporate coders.
What you see on Github is people's polished code - you don't see what they are throwing away. They might be better, but you are probably looking at some of the code they are most proud of.
(Actually, for my github/bitbucket page this is no longer the case. After I watched this video, I started publishing as much of my code as possible, if it actually did what it was supposed to)
Thanks for that link--the first 5-7 minutes nicely covers the "what if someone judges me by the quality of my code" fear that lots of us have.
I was pleased to see your parenthetical comment as well--one of the hobby horses I ride is to try to convince people to release more of their "hacky" code than they currently do.
"""
At the same time I posit that there is much useful/functional (albeit ugly) code sitting trapped on hard-drives around the world because the developer is concerned a future employer/client [or peer] might judge them for it if it were released.
While this sort of filtering by prospective employer/client may well happen, I think the average developer concerned about such things has a much higher standard for work than needed.
I've tried to adjust my thinking to "Well, it works for me, that means it might be useful to someone else, so I'll put it up there. If some future employer/client can't see that it's a quick hack and not representative of my daily work, well, that probably says more about them."
I'd rather find your 10-line hack to get that obscure API working and build on it, than nothing at all.
"""
Good artists copy, great artists steal. To develop good taste you need to observe lots of other, better work and try to understand what makes them so. Taste isn't something you inherently have.
100% correct. Speaking from first-hand knowledge: artists who develop their career in isolation from other artists generally produce either terrible or subpar work. There are exceptions but they are getting rarer as our culture becomes more global. In other words, globalization of culture sets expectations. Something similar may apply to the economy.
Well that's true for any field I guess... "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" said Newton. Interestingly enough, he himself took inspiration from various sources all the way from John of Salisbury for that particular quote, somehow making that famous quote self-referencing.
As someone who is "finally" starting to find success in my early 30's, this is something I think of a lot.
Think of all of the famous people you know of, who are doing great work right now. Now look at how old some of them are.
Steve Carrell is 48 years old. Jon Stewart is 48. Louis C.K. is 44.
All of them are great at what they do, but how old were they when they finally reached the top of their professions? Sure, you can think of small gigs they had in the decades before, but just think of how long they had to work at what they did to get where they are. I always wonder how often they came close to quitting. (I remember hearing an interesting story about this from Louis C.K., but I don't remember the details)
To do great creative work, you not only have to love it enough to work that hard at it, yes, you have to have incredible taste to always be finding that one little thing that you can improve - for decades and decades.
I'm an amateur chef and I cook for friends and family all the time. They're often happier than I am about the meal because I know it could be way better.
Probably off topic, but the deadline point struck me most about the video. I'm a firm believer in self-directed learning, but I must admit that one of the benefits of having an overarching system that pushes you to deliver on time, such as school or a boss, can also have its benefits in setting the deadlines for you (and enforcing them). It takes a great amount of self-discipline to stick to one's own deadlines.
I recently discovered http://www.stickk.com . I haven't tried it, but my understanding is that you set a goal, a deadline, some stakes and a referee. If you don't finish in time, you have to pay the price (stakes) that you have set. This can for example be donating money to an organization you don't like.
I've struggled a lot with external deadlines vs self-imposed ones. The stuff with external deadlines always gets delivered, personal projects all too often slip.
A key part of raising one's game is seeing this for what it is and addressing it effectively. Announcing self-imposed deadlines to others to create external accountability is one
way.
Yes, absolutely true. Anecdotally the first couple of novels I wrote (unpublished) disgusted me. I know the stories I want to tell and all of the things that make books in my genre (fantasy and historical fiction) suck. But I found myself reading the semi-finished work and finding the same plot holes and problems.
#2 was better than #1. And #3 is looking better and better as it goes on (I enjoy reading it, which is a good start :)).
Same with programming. I have scratty bits of PHP code from a couple of years ago that make me cringe. Today I am writing the same functionality - it still sucks, but not quite as much as it used to.
I loved this, thanks.
The hardest part about being a creative / writer, or even entrepreneur is the high expectations set by those you admire, and the impossibility of fully imagining the amount of time it will take you to reach their level.
I don't know how true it is, or whether others agree, but I have always felt (except with work of exceptional brilliance), that I have the power (given enough work) to create work on the same level of anything I can see and appreciate - the key, I think is knowing why I appreciate it.
I think that is one of the most insightful and meaningful (to me) interviews I've heard in a while. When he plays his old piece and completely lambasts it, I felt amazingly inspired that, maybe, in 10 years I will be able to look back and say the same about my own work. But at the same time be extremely happy about it because I'll know that I'm well beyond where I am used to be.
It's not just the work; I've come to accept (on some level) that I need to keep moving when working on projects and not fixate on a single detail to get it exactly right. But there's also the nagging feeling that programming is just, well, not all that deep creatively.
Not sure I completely agree with this idea. I used to own an art gallery and saw many artists, early in their careers, who actually THOUGHT they were great, but who were actually terrible. Some of those same artists later DID become great and produced masterful works (and were embarrassed by their early works). For some people I think it's possible for taste to improve as they walk along their creative journey.
Another example: I wasn't frustrated with my code when I first started because I didn't even have the taste to know it was bad.
It definitely spoke to the writer in me and also the entrepreneur. Sometimes I get this ache inside and when I'm unable to express myself. Even now I can't say it right.
Finally after a lot of hard work people finally understand what took me a long time to translate. I always imagine how the creator of Mad Men or any site that works beautifully must have really beaten themselves up to get that good.
I think most of the time I'm not happy with what I do 'cause I know I could do a lot better and I know what I need to do to achieve that.
But seems like I just can't quit my bad behaviors and do what needs to be done.
My work always disappoints me because there's the idealistic image in my head and I could never get it right on paper, no matter how hard I try just like I could never draw a perfect circle.
i can relate to this comment, I have been programming for only a few years but seem to get constantly frustrated with where I currently am compared to where I want to be.
He makes an interesting point. I'd like to hear him address the other side of it too though: What about people who have good taste but won't actually be capable of producing work that meets their high standards even after trying for a decade?
He says after 8 years he was still an awful reporter, but I don't think good taste necessarily guaranteed he'd become a good one. Seems like a lot of people could head pretty far down the wrong path if they just take his word.
There are a few exceptions, instinctive things like music, comedy and cult leading. The people who are good at these things don't really know why they are good at it, though they will often make something up.
Are you kidding? Every single good musician who I know well got that way through good taste + deliberate practice + hustle. The same goes for comics (though I only know a couple of those). Re: cult leading, I don’t have enough experience to judge.
I think the other part that makes you good is actually liking the process. When you don't care what the outcome is, the journey becomes the reward. And that can lead to some pretty awesome creative work :)
Think about all the struggling artistic types out there though. Ask any unknown rock group who they like and they'll probably name the same legendary bands like Zeppelin, Floyd, etc., but most of them will never make it anywhere.
Tons of people have 'good taste', but I think there are certain careers where it's not a valid indicator of future success... not even close. Telling a musician "you have good taste, so you'll do well if you just keep trying" would be horrible advice 99% of the time. Hell, I wouldn't even say good taste is a prerequisite for music, because people always think the innovators are completely insane until they become the next big thing.
Methinks "good taste" refers not to the set of things you decide are good or bad, but to the perception and analysis you use to make such decisions.
It's best if you're able to explain yourself. The consummate person-with-good-taste-in-music should be able to listen to Led Zeppelin and say, "Ah, this is good, they do XYZ really well, those are the things that make this song good"; and it should be right, which means that if you took Led Zeppelin and had them do X not as well, and played the result to members of the general public, they would react much less enthusiastically than they would to the original song.
Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the really useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall; XYZ are good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you can tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix its XYZ.
It's sometimes possible to use your taste to be successful even if you're not able to explain yourself with words. If you're carefully listening to your project (or using whatever sense is appropriate; imagine a man closing his eyes and calmly giving his entire attention to the sensation), and you just feel that a certain thing isn't the way you like it and needs to be changed in a certain way, and you make the change, and repeat the process until you're satisfied... If you have very good taste, then these things that you felt needed fixing were precisely the things that the consummate person-with-good-taste would perceive and describe, and your product should now be really good (at least, much better than before).
If you have that kind of taste, and if you have control over your project (or if the people working with you simply trust your decisions), then you can get success without ever developing the ability to articulate just why a particular thing is good or bad. On the other hand, it is probably possible to have excellent taste in most regards but to just be flat-out wrong about a couple of important things. To guard against this possibility, it is useful to be able to explain yourself and to compare your words with others's.
You can probably start to learn to articulate your tastes by experiencing several things that are similar, but you definitely like some of them more than the others, and thinking about what makes them different and what might explain your preference. You'll have to be careful--not to attribute like or dislike to the wrong things--but you will probably make progress sooner or later.
> Being able to say "this is good" or "this is bad" is a start, but the really useful thing is to be able to go deeper and say "this is good overall; XYZ are good aspects of it; ABC could have been done better". 'Cause then you can tweak ABC and make it even better, or go to a comparable project and fix its XYZ.
This is a very good point, and I've seen it as my own musical tastes have developed. I have several friends who are in bands, and while they appreciate praise and fan adoration, they seem to be doubly appreciate when I say something like, "Your solos are a little too clean; turn up the distortion a bit," or "The lead is being drowned out by the harmonies."
By offering very direct constructive criticism, you are signaling to the artist that you appreciate their work enough to listen that closely in order to help them make it even better. On several occasions I've taken to conspicuously listening to a single band member, and without fail that person played better simply as a result of being scrutinized.
Being that critic and scrutinizing yourself in that same way is probably the surest way to improve your own art. That is why taste must come before good art. And that is why the best artists never seem satisfied. If they ever had been satisfied along the way, they never would have made it as far as they did.
I don't think liking Zeppelin, Floyd, etc... is a sure indicator of good taste, at least in the way Glass refers to it.
Appreciating something regardless of fashion / mob taste would be a better indicator in this case. Having liked Pink Floyd before they hit it big would have been a good indicator. But not everyone who hits it big is due to good creative work (although I'd defend Pink Floyd's is).
Look for ilyAIMY, the Floorwalkers, and the Andy Shaw Band in a few years. All three have a unique and tasty music style.
If you want a good example of a rock band that I quite liked which never made it big, check out Snake Like Charm. Their song "Responsible For" was a Napster hit, but their first two albums are both quite good and thoroughly unrecognized.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loxJ3FtCJJA (building blocks of stories; very well illustrated!)
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6x7lOIsPE (kill your darlings, failure is part of success, you don't want to be making mediocre stuff)
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY (taste & disappointment)
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCJFAGEuJM (common pitfalls of making stories; be yourself; what's interesting isn't only your take of things, it's seeing you interact with other people)
edit: fixed the links