Prolific=Good?
I post an average of once every two weeks. I received head trauma that prevents me from being concise. This means that if I were to blog daily or even weekly, I don't know if I'd have a life.That's not to say I have much of a "life," per se.
Prolific artists:
Picasso: a prisoner of his own prolificacy?
Ryan Adams: You'd try to pull your hair out if you wrote 1,834 songs in five years, too!
Not-so-prolific Artists:
Michaelangelo: No BS, the David took time.
Jeff freakin' Buckley: I'm not going to lie. Grace may be the best one-and-done in history.
Amy Weiner: she posts only during lunar eclipses, but every time, it's a hit.
So the question I pose to you, dear reader, is as follows:
Is it better to be prolific, or not?
Write often or write well? Or both?
You be the judge and jury.
posted by paul @ 9:34 AM
8 Comments:
i question whether how prolific or non-prolific you are is even within your control, and thus if one can be better than the other... or if they both just are.
i don't think ryan adams and picasso are churning out garbage; and i don't think less of michaelangelo, jeff the freak buckley, or amy weiner for not cranking out the product. too much of a good thing can be just that, and a good thing few and far between can cause you to forget about someone and look elsewhere (i don't check amy's blog unless i'm told to): they both have their faults.
what would be wrong would be for ryan adams to only write a few songs here and there and for michaelangelo to churn out less perfect statues of all the major and minor prophets.
i heard ryan adams describe himself once as a sketch artist, which i think is fitting of his prolific output. sketch artists make a lot of sketches. ryan adams is great because he can be profound, while not trying too hard to be so. (there's a certain charm in that, and he's aided by his staunch honesty)
jeff buckley is probably more like a painter. making a piece of work that takes a lot of time and energy, and is beautiful because of that. he might make you work a little harder to know what he's saying, and there's a certain mystery worth exploring in that.
both are good in their own right.
these are my thoughts. sorry if they're prolific.
OK, good topic Paul. I disagree with Brett... for the most part. Picasso churned out a lot of garbage. I do agree that most of us have an inclination to either be prolific or not, but I don't think we should always accept that. I have the tendancy to be completely non-prolific, mostly because I'm lazy and lack passion. But in order to better myself I should write, and paint, and draw, and take photos more often. Practice make perfect. So, I guess I think it is better to be more prolific. I think the secret is to only advertise the good stuff: if you take a hundred pictures, put 95 in a box under your bed and show off the 5 best ones, or if you write all the time, keep some of it to yourself and post the best stuff on your blog, or if you write 3 songs a day you should still probably only release 1 or 2 albums per year, etc...
I think Melody, once again, has hit the nail on the head. This is coming from the undisputed King of Churning out Daily Garbage. The Dailyrice needs to perhaps be renamed the bidailyrice. But yeah,I'd have to go with the simplest answer here: if you enjoy it, and if others are at the least not terribly offended, do it as much as you like.
Melody,
You are truly too kind. Blogging rocks my world and it's good that my family knows what I'm up to. I still need to link you... I'll have to start reading Bretts, and see if I can change it to the bidailyrice...
Your best psuedo-electronic-know your boyfriend but not really friend,
Michael Rice
Dear Melody and Michael,
Glad you guys can be such good friends on my blog.
Melody and I are best friends at this point. Thank you wheatspot!
M
Concise is best.
Being prolific is useful in the exploritory phase of a creative project but has no place in the end product as it distracts an audience and dilutes the ideas.
Post a Comment
<< Home