A good job

[guitarplayer]

Occasionally you see artists reflecting on how the most widely appreciated pieces of their work are not at all what the artists themselves consider their most significant achievements. The same goes more generally for creators of ideas, even just in a casual conversation. Or more generally in education and at work.

I certainly experience it. How do you reconcile this disparity, what are your thoughts on it?

I appreciate this is a wide call to chip in and you might not want to bother sharing what you consider your most significant ideas on it

[7Wannabe5]

Yes, I strongly agree that the world is not yet ready to appreciate my most significant ideas

[chenda]

Ummm...much of my artistic persuits are motivated by a desire to record things I like and which I fear may one day vanish.

One of the best books I ever 'read' was a wordless children's picture book as it spoke to me on so many different levels.

[Viktor K]

In social media, I just steal what is viral and repurpose it with my own opinions, ignoring the cringe

In less public facing pursuits I go more with my intuition and own judgements

[DutchGirl]

I would say: don't let others decide what your best work is or has been. After all, look at their taste in other matters: tv shows that are popular, political candidates, how they spend their holiday... Most people have, basically, bad taste.

[loutfard]

There's people's admiration for particular bits of your work. Being in the public eye, part of your job is gracefully accepting that admiration.

There's also you as an individual expressing yourself. Only rarely will your audience prohibit you from doing that. They may love or dislike what you do next. So what? You're not married to them and they aren't to you.

[Henry]

There's also you as an individual expressing yourself. Only rarely will your audience prohibit you from doing that. They may love or dislike what you do next. So what? You're not married to them and they aren't to you.

You think Madonna fans want to hear her new material? When artists reach a certain level of success, they do become married to their fans and the fans do prohibit artistic growth. Rod Stewart has been stuck being Rod Stewart since 1975. They create a career and then carry their own torch. A few artists, Bowie for instance, can escape it. Bob Dylan. But they established changing early on in their career. It also explains why so few child actors can sustain a career. Leonardo DiCaprio being the exception. A Rolling Stones new tour will sell out in a second. A Rolling Stones new release will go unnoticed.

[jacob]

From the Chesapeake novel of James Mitchener, quoting a congregation of Bicentennial scholars. [I don't know if this is fiction.]

A minor classic is that book which occasions little notice when published, and no stir among the buying public. It appears in one small edition, or may two if members of the author's family buy a few extra copies, and it dies a quick and natural death. But as decades pass we find that everyone in the world who ought to have read this book has done so. It enjoys a subterranean life, as it were, kept alive by scholars and affectionate laymen of all nations. They whisper to another, "You ought to read this little book by So-and-so. It's a gem." And a hundred years we find that more people have read this little book by So-and-so than have read the popular success which was such as success in its day. What is more important, the people who do read he little book will be those who do the works of the world: who educate the young, or make national decisions, or endeavor to reach generalizations of the own.

[Henry]

I watched a documentary on Van Gogh. The guy was a complete mess and received little acclaim during his lifetime. Psychotic episodes, starvation, cuts off his own ear and then shoots himself in the chest at 37. A hundred years later one of his paintings goes for $80M. Forget about crime. Being ahead of your time does not pay.

The greatest scam was the Grateful Head. Forget about that hippy dippy bullshit. They created a loyal fanbase, gave them what they wanted and took them for all they were worth. Did their idiotic space jams and then drove off in their Beemers. They filled up every stadium in the country with the same brainwashed idiots who followed them around and sold them merchandise and an empty promise. I can think of a recent politician who stole their business model.

[loutfard]

You think Madonna fans want to hear her new material?

Most don't. Being in the public eye, part of your job is gracefully accepting that admiration for your old work.

When artists reach a certain level of success, they do become married to their fans and the fans do prohibit artistic growth.

In some ways, it's not unlike ERE. You don't _have_ to stay employed with that same employer. You don't _have_ to keep that same client. You have an actual choice as an artist what to do with your current audience: keep them happy on your old work, try and pull them towards your new work, fire them.

[Henry]

Most don't. Being in the public eye, part of your job is gracefully accepting that admiration for your old work.



In some ways, it's not unlike ERE. You don't _have_ to stay employed with that same employer. You don't _have_ to keep that same client. You have an actual choice as an artist what to do with your current audience: keep them happy on your old work, try and pull them towards your new work, fire them.

Admiration for your old work = nostalgia.

Initially, the artist owns the fans. Then the fans own the artist. If Madonna fires her fans, she will be left staring at herself in the mirror Sunset Blvd. style. She will be famous, but more of a curiosity than an artist which is what she has become. In music, the artists are usually slightly older than the fans. This allows them to articulate what the fans feel but can't articulate themselves. Eventually the fans outgrow the artist, move on, have a life, and then come back for nostalgia. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. It's why 65 year old women become orgasmic at Air Supply concerts. Although, I can't say with certainty I wouldn't myself if I attended one.

[jacob]

Being ahead of your time does not pay.

The trading aphorism is that "being early is the same as being wrong". This has big implications for anyone trying to lead the herd whether it's money, power, or fame.

[guitarplayer]

Thanks for the input all.

The thread down the artistic route which is fine, but as I set it up it would also include simple situations where you are trying to communicate something and getting acclaim for it while thinking to yourself 'well but that's not the point I was trying to make here'.

In the ere book there is this bit about appropriate response which could apply here I think.

That minor classic entry is a good one.

Yeah I often thing of Van Gogh in this context. By the way there is an animated movie on Van Gogh called Loving Vincent, animated in the style of Van Gogh. Heaps of artists contributed painting shot after shot. It actually stirs up something of an ethnic sentiment in me as its a Polish-British production sponsored by the Polish Film Institute. It's a very aesthetically pleasing piece.

[fiby41]

Mario Puzo first wrote the Fortunate Pilgrim before the Godfather. In the forward to the book the Fortunate Pilgrim, he or someone that wrote the forward laments by echoing the sentiment in this thread.

Benjamin Graham wrote the Security Analysis before the Intelligent Investor. Published in 1934, Security Analysis was a mammoth textbook for serious students of the market, laying out in much more detail the innovative concepts that were later summarized for a popular audience in The Intelligent Investor.

Veda Vyāsa, wrote the Brahma-Sūtra starting with 'Now, therefore, this enquiry into the nature of Being' but not satisified with mere aphorisms and knowing the people to be of limited time (age) and understanding, composed the Mahābhārata.

[guitarplayer]

Yeah that, @fiby41. It's admirable that people bother nevertheless.

Out of interest, on your last paragraph, where do you place Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in this framework? I had read them in my early twenties and it had an impact. I had a good translation, here a bit of background on the translator in English (briefly, the translator had a psychology and Indian philosophy background).

[ertyu]

Radiohead hate Creep and resent its popularity because they feel it underrepresents what they're capable of as a band. They dislike being reduced to it in the popular listener's mind.

[Ego]

Occasionally you see artists reflecting on how the most widely appreciated pieces of their work are not at all what the artists themselves consider their most significant achievements.

How do you reconcile this disparity, what are your thoughts on it?

Creating a legacy is a way to cope with the biological reality that we will someday be dead. Our legacy allows us to live beyond death. It is natural that we want to shape it and become frustrated when it does not represent us in the way we wish to be represented.

The question I keep coming back to is this. How is spending ones life creating a worthy legacy different from spending ones life trying make parents proud or impress friends? In other words, how is it not just a more refined version of keeping up with the Joneses?

So, to answer your question, I believe this common disparity between the legacy they want and the one they get is the inevitable result of a Sisyphean quest to live forever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

[7Wannabe5]

I think it's also possible to simply be amused or otherwise philosophical if your legacy doesn't resemble what you imagined. I mean, even after you die, it's subject to change. It seems to me that most older humans who are in legacy mode are less likely to be afraid of death than pain or extreme disability. I've already planned my best death which would be that I am doing something like walking to the sauna in my backyard through the woods, and then I just fall over into a soft bank of snow, close my eyes and drift away.

[Ego]

I think it's also possible to simply be amused or otherwise philosophical if your legacy doesn't resemble what you imagined.

This is a common occurrence in our peer group. They had very strong expectations about how their kids would turn out. When those expectations do not match reality, it can be a true existential crisis.

Perhaps an even larger crisis occurs when someone spends their life striving for a legacy achievement and gets it, but then realizes that it is not worth having.

[guitarplayer]

I shouldn’t have started this thread with an example of an artist, ha! I didn’t have any legacy in mind, think more phenomenology: that stuff feels the same to multiple people here and now. There is a sort of harmony involved there almost. Maybe this is just a pie in the sky though!