A Distant Soil by Colleen Doran

Must Read.

A few years ago, I wrote an article on my work schedule (reposted just a few weeks ago, click the Time Management tab), and the rather intense demands in it led some people to observe that my attitude showed a disturbing level of American go-get-it drive, a sad obsession with “being #1″, and a workaholic tendency.

Darn those crazy Americans! When are they ever going to learn to stop and smell the roses (I grow roses, by the way.)

Well, this very interesting article is yet another look at the simple fact behind success; PRACTICE is a greater indicator of success as an artist than innate talent, and the work habits of those artists who succeed show that those who work harder get better results. It’s not God-given talent, it’s drive and work ethic.

Scientists have investigated this question of expertise — specifically, skill at a level that seems unobtainable by normal, motivated individuals. In one study, researchers led by Florida State University professor K. Anders Ericsson studied musicians at a Berlin conservatory. Students were divided into three skill levels, including one the faculty had identified as having the best chance of becoming world-class soloists. The researchers had the students keep diaries of their schedules and looked at such information as when they started playing and their practice habits as children…

The results were clear-cut, with little room for any sort of inscrutable God-given talent. The elite musicians had simply practiced far more than the others. “That’s been replicated for all sorts of things — chess players and athletes, dart players,” says Ericsson. “The only striking difference between experts and amateurs is in this capability to deliberately practice.” The group even determined the number of hours musicians must play to compete at the highest professional level — about 10,000, the equivalent of practicing four hours a day, every day, for almost seven years.

When I was in high school, I also began keeping a work diary. I showed that I averaged a 40 hour work week at drawing outside of school, and after I became a pro, I ratcheted that up to as many as 120 hours a week. (That’s a bit much. I don’t recommend it at all.)

But it is normal for me to work a 60-80 hour week now. 40 hours is simply not enough to get good results. It has been very weird to not work so hard this year as I normally do, and have to take time to rest and recover from illness. It not only feels weird, but I resent having to do it. I feel very rested, but I also feel as if I have lost precious months of drawing time! That makes me sad and angry.

There are a lot of naturally talented artists out there, and I know many who have a lot more talent than I do. They have this extraordinary ability to create coupled with an equally extraordinary ability to not produce much, and all the excuses in the world for why they don’t.

I am astonished that there are people who come up to me with portfolios and say they have only had time to do a few new sketches THIS YEAR and I wonder what the heck they think they are going to accomplish at that rate. An artist should be driven to create, as if they are being propelled from within. If you can’t find the drive to do more than a few drawings a year, you will be eclipsed by those who are so motivated that they cannot be stopped from drawing.

The study as outlined here does seem to miss one important point: it is highly likely that people who are not getting a return on their results early on are going to give up. Perhaps innate ability does play a significant part. That is, people who get good results and feedback get positive feelings that make them want to work harder, to continue. People who don’t get good results and good feedback don’t.

Someone who finds their early art efforts hampered in some way will likely not want to continue. Why do something difficult, something that makes you feel bad, something from which you do not get a good response? Most people won’t.

Only those who get a measurable return from the art early on will be compelled to continue and put forth the effort. Whether that effort is simply the private joy of the act of creation, or the positive reinforcement of a teacher or mentor, without early forward momentum, it’s highly unlikely that even the most innately talented individual will muster the will to put in thousands of hours of effort.

A naturally talented person will put forth the effort while the untalented individual will give up when they are not getting anything out of it.

Which explains my music aspirations. I studied music for twelve years, but got nowhere.

I got far better results from drawing, winning my first award at age five, and put in twice as much effort in drawing as I did into music.

Like magic, innit?

c

Following, selections from the comments:

Allan Harvey:

“An artist should be driven to create, as if they are being propelled from within.”

Artistic talent takes many different forms. To make it as a commercial artist, one may need to be driven, but that’s not necessarily true. Jim Steranko, for example, is lauded but has done relatively little work. Walt Disney only drew until he was successful enough to start his own studio, then he stopped. Carmine Infantino gave away all his artist equipment when he became DC publisher.

Some artists, like yourself, are driven to draw. They have to do it. They get antsy if they’re not sitting at a drawing board. But there are others who have artistic talent, can draw rings around anyone, but who aren’t driven to do it; who can go for months, years without drawing. It’s not a passion for them. That’s not to say, though, that they can’t be successful at it. They just won’t be succesful as often.

Harper Lee only wrote one book. But it was a good one. That’s really the key. If you want to make it, make sure you do good work. Quality over quantity.

Poor Allan made a perfectly valid point, and it set me off on a rant. But I think my response is worth reposting:

Well, I think this misses a really good point: even people like Harper Lee wrote a great deal before they wrote their Great American Novel, did their single greatest work, and then quit writing for publication. But everyone who became successful spent years working at their craft before they became successful. I don’t know of any talent who ever became successful who skated along before they became successful.

Practice is what gets one to be successful at one’s craft. The fact that some people rest after they get success is not the issue. No one becomes successful resting BEFORE they become successful.

I still don’t feel as if my work has reached the point where I can feel like I have reached a level that satisfies me, but other more successful artists do. I am going to keep pushing and pushing.

Harper Lee was a pro writer BEFORE she wrote To Kill a Mockingbird and then she quit, Carmine ditched drawing after he got a cushy job in an office, Disney quit drawing after he became a successful studio head, etc. They all achieved success AFTER the work, not BEFORE the work.

The work you do before the great work is all practice, and without the practice, you will never do great work.

I think we also have a fundamental disagreement about the definition of success. I would not consider Carmine Infantino a model for success as an artist who produced outstanding work, I would consider someone like Art Spiegleman that model. Carmine Infantino strikes me as a model of success for a good quality journeyman, but not someone who produced work of lasting artistic merit. To me, being able to make a living at art is not my definition of success. The point is not production speed or volume the point is about excellence. A good deal of my work has never (and will never) be published, but even when my work is not being produced for publication, it is being produced for practice. More than 25% of my life’s work is unpublished. I may never achieve my personal definition of success, no matter how much I work. Maybe that is why I work so hard, because I am never satisfied.

Writers like Harper Lee are often writing, but not for publication. Margaret Mitchell, for example, only ever produced one novel, but she wrote a number of articles for years before that, and after the publication of Gone with the Wind she wrote stacks of letters. She was always writing, even if she wasn’t writing for publication. She still had that drive.

Steranko’s drive to create did not grow into a drive to draw, but he was always creative and moving in other directions as an artist. He never stopped growing when he wasn’t drawing. Just because my particular passion is drawing, that doesn’t mean that other artists have to be like me and draw all the time. Others may choose to move in different directions, and clearly, every single person you named moved in other creative directions. They continued to work in the arts.

I defy you to come up with a single creator who did not work long hours at their craft BEFORE they made their reputation. What they do afterward is not the issue here. The article is about the hard work required to get to the top of the hill, not the rest you get to do once you get there.

And a quick bit of research into Harper Lee shows that not only was she extremely well-educated, and even attended classes at Oxford, she worked as a writer and editor, as well as assistant to Truman Capote before she wrote To Kill A Mockingbird. I’d say that gives her many a year of cred for hard work.

Moreover, it appears it took more than two years to write the slim novel that went on to win the Pulitzer.

Hard work for well-chosen words. Years of preparation, education, and effort.

It ‘aint like winning the lottery.

Ultimately, I think your post reflects the mistaken idea that practicing one’s craft has anything to do with productivity. It doesn’t. When I encounter aspiring artists with bad portfolios who claim they only had time to doodle a few drawing in an entire year, I know I am dealing with someone who has neither a clue nor a work ethic. And, at 28 years of age, if they are putting that in front of me and claiming they have a burning desire to create to boot, I know they are kidding themselves, but not kidding me.

While I may work long hours, there is nothing in my original post that makes the claim that my goal is simply to produce a lot of comics. My goal is to practice my craft to become a better artist. The original story clearly indicates that those hard working musicians spend long hours practicing scales. There is nothing to indicate a goal of volume production in re-running the same scales over and over. However, this routine enhances one’s craft. My practicing my drawing skills relentlessly is the equivalent of this, even when I am not working on a book or a new picture.

c

Allan must have felt like he’d been hit by a bus. His response:

I was merely responding to that comment about drive. It seems to imply that anyone who isn’t driven can’t be an artist. Naturally, having absolutely no drive myself, but wanting to fool everyone I’m an artist, I have to disagree. Of course no one has ever been successful without any kind of practice — but that wasn’t the point I was making. And — IMHO, obviously — Maus woulda been ten times better if drawn by Carmine. I concede I might be alone in that assessment tho…

And mine:

LOL! OK, we are definitely in disgreement over Carmine!

There may be varying levels of drive, but there is no success without it, and having drive is far more likely to produce results than not having drive, which was the point of the article.

I don’t think I have ever met an artist who didn’t have drive at some point. I have known many who have completely lost their drive, however.

(Originally posted August 2006.)