I'm 55 and I just finished writing a couple of books. I felt that I had done so much and seen so many cool things that before I check out I owed the world a "book report", whether anybody wanted to read it or not. So I wrote a couple.
I don't think I could have done that even ten years ago. There's a perspective you get, kind of a postmodernism, where you both understand the topics and the common ways of addressing them, then are able to move past that. I guess geniuses reach that point in their teens. It might take a bit longer for the rest of us :)
There's a thing I see with younger tech authors where they don't want to admit it, but they're for the most part chasing fame. That's a different kind of creativity. I never was good at that and it hasn't gotten much better, either. Perhaps you need a good foundation in order to "bloom" eventually?
I don't have as many years as you, I'm 36, but I can already start to see what you're talking about. I started out life as an artist, getting a bachelors in fine arts and imagining that I'd be a famous painter. In reality, I just didn't have a good enough foundation in order to build something truly creative. You just have to have a lot of varied experiences to draw from.
I'm pretty sure becoming a famous painter has a lot more to do with who you know than what you know or do.
I'm sorry, I didn't go to art school myself. I was alergic to art school culture, so I transferred to computer science. But I've been in and around lots of artist groups over the years. Even made a small business out of making installations for artists, for a short while. (That's a while other thing. Big Art artists often don't make their own things. They're more like producers or project managers than technicians).
The one thing that struck as the big difference between the artists who were making it and the ones who were struggling was really just their social group. The ones who were making it came from rich families, knew art dealers, and were getting invited to the "popular" artist parties.
At least, that was the case for "fine" art, artists selling a small number of high-value pieces. The other way to make it was to make a large number of populist pieces, for mass production, and then hustle hard on the craft fair circuit. If they could build a following that way and refine their process to cut costs to the bar minimum, then they could maybe explode selling online.
But just going to art school, being really creative and a master of craft, and hoping someone will discover you... Never seen it happen.
It's interesting, because I think it actually has a lot of parallels to open source software. You don't really get big in OSS by making a cool program. You have to market the shit out of it. And about the only way to do that in a way that OSS users aren't allergic to is networking on the public speaking circuit, knowing lots of other popular developers, getting them to use your software.
> In areas of human activity where performance is difficult to quantify in an objective fashion, reputation and networks of influence play a key role in determining access to resources and rewards. To understand the role of these factors, we reconstructed the exhibition history of half a million artists, mapping out the coexhibition network that captures the movement of art between institutions. Centrality within this network captured institutional prestige, allowing us to explore the career trajectory of individual artists in terms of access to coveted institutions. Early access to prestigious central institutions offered life-long access to high-prestige venues and reduced dropout rate. By contrast, starting at the network periphery resulted in a high dropout rate, limiting access to central institutions. A Markov model predicts the career trajectory of individual artists and documents the strong path and history dependence of valuation in art.
Maurizio Cattelan famous to for his satirical pieces like a banana taped to a wall and a solid gold toilet, was not born to a rich family. He also had no formal art training.
Banksy did not rely on meeting people, quite the opposite.
There's a documentary called the price of everything of a man who spent a decade with his wife in his secluded art studio producing a new art technique and came back in 2015-2016 to 'turn in his work' and made bank.
There's a where the rubber meets the road aspect to each of these artists. What happened to Maurizio Cattelan between being born and duct taping that banana? Who did the man and wife turn their art into? It seems that these things did not just happen one day and then they became famous. Clearly they all knew someone who lit the marketing fuse. Could've been a rich cousin or could have been someone on the street with a social media following.
Most things like this have outliers. It doesn't change the fact that being a successful artist mostly relies on having the right social network and sheer luck. The examples you gave had luck that got them to the right social circles - it'd have been easier for either one if they were born into the right sorts of families.
The social circle thing is so prevalent that most artist I've met that sell regularly spend about as much or more time networking as they do making art. Most folks are just stuck having luck enough to sell from time to time, especially if they are outliers and not doing things that match many living rooms.
Those are perfect counterexamples. Although both these artists knew quite a bit about marketing and advertising, which is paramount in art, as noted by Warhol.
> There's a thing I see with younger tech authors where they don't want to admit it, but they're for the most part chasing fame
They'd see it as "making an impact [and standing to benefit from that]." Not casting judgment here. It's just that the motive really decides how you focus your time, which determines the outcome and the types of things you work on.
HN seems to be preoccupied with this notion of whether something is relevant. Thing is, as you get older, that is less of a draw, as your life experience shows you how to evaluate things beyond what other people say about them.
I've seen discussion from time to time about there being two different types of genius which manifest at different ages. Especially as it applies to writers.
- I am not here pushing books. In fact, you won't find a link in my feed
- Although these books are meant to help people who develop technology, frankly I'm not interested in what the average developer has to say about them. I wouldn't have liked some of my conclusions either had I read about them 20 years ago
- I have deliberately priced my books to only sell to people interested and dedicated in reading them This is the only reason I'm replying to you: I wouldn't want somebody else to go find the books and then start a flame war based on my price. If you can't afford it but are dedicated to learning, ping me. We'll work something out. Otherwise yeah, it's crazy high compared to the "Learn You Some Javascript in Five Hours" free YouTube-based courseware.
I have to say, the preemptive defensiveness is quite a turn-off. Maybe you're replying to common, unfair complaints you've received in the past which have jaded you, but if you're going to take such an acidic route, you should just bite your tongue until you actually receive the comments you think you're replying to.
And David, good call on the price. I wouldn't respect anyone who would begrudge you the price of your most hard-won knowledge, esp when it sounds like you do consulting.
Interesting use of postmodernism. You are saying modern is now and “post” is being able to see beyond/around/through current notions?
I think it works but postmodernism is a hotly discussed word that will break a reader from their flow. It definitely broke me out and made me think about how it could be applied here, so if that was your intent it worked. I always enjoy the tactical use of literary “flexes” like semi-colons, large words, etc. when they are done fully understanding their impact.
I think he means postmodern in the common sense of the postmodern movement.
Modernism was a architectural and philosophical trend that peaked in the 50s. It really got started a few decades earlier than that. Think of uniform apartment blocks: modernist architecture in action. It was a sense that we were finding the universal laws of everything and we could make things equal and fair via uniform architecture for example.
Postmodernism was a critique of that and a deconstruction. Modernist ideas didn’t work all the time and for everyone.
If you’re referring to “now” the word you can use is contemporary. Meaning “along side”. This works for more things eg: “Albert Einstein corresponded extensively with his contemporaries.” Or “I dislike contemporary architecture”.
I was trying to be generous because if we use the literal interpretation of postmodernism what he is saying makes no sense. Or if you can explain how the modernist/postmodernist movements relate in the context of his post I would be glad to hear your interpretation.
And my favorite simple way to define it is:
modernism - post industrial revolution enthusiasm about humanity
postmodernism - post ww2 depression about humanity
Postmodernism in philosophy is associated with rejection/skepticism of common narrative (eg reject absolutism in Marxism/capitalism/etc). He claims he understands the common trends (in “infoops”) and goes beyond them, which I guess is his justification for the word choice. I agree it feels more of a flex than an actual precise use of language.
Modernism was also an art movement rhat favoured idealism over realism and produced a variety of new styles. Pointillism used tiny dots of paint to generate different colours when viewed from a far. Similar to a pixel, and more beautiful. There was a move to abstractions like cubism and modrian went out of his way to show off the most basic components of a cow in the abstract. It spanned from the 1860s to the 1970s.
OP's use of the word postmodernism doesn't really make sense, as a general rule. Many people get to the end of a topic and don't fall into questioning and desconstructing our modern and historical narratives. Many people can see an end to a topic and seek to add onto it or move on without destruction, a natural completion. Being done with the topic for life. Maybe OP is showing an affinity for stepping outside our normal social bounds for a new perspective via pomo and I don't think he meant that.
>> It was a sense that we were finding the universal laws of everything and we could make things equal and fair via uniform architecture for example.
Sorry guys. No flex intended. It was only a metaphor.
Modernism is the idea that we've discovered all of the ways of doing things from nature and now we're just honing in on doing those better. My subject was "How people interact with the technology they create". In this sense, whether it's process, coding, UI or whatnot, most everything you read is just another example of old standards we've had for decades: structured code, CMMI, RUP, XP, FP, and so on. Whatever you pick, the idea is that there are already pre-discovered and well-trodden paths ahead of you. The message from modernism is "Don't worry; we've figured it all out. This is the way it should be."
Continuing the metaphor, postmodernism is a critique of each of these from a standpoint of tearing them apart by way of understanding what's good and what's bad about each. It's certainly not a rejection of modernism by any means. It's simply an understanding of the various modern paths and what's wrong with each of them. In its classic sense, postmodernism is a way of deeply understanding and critiquing, many times by creating new works to contrast with the old methods, in order that the overall field can move forward. It's not a path of its own
Maybe this is where we ventured off-course. The word "postmodernism" has come to mean the universal tearing apart of anything that is traditional, ie deconstructionism. That was not my intent at all. In my mind, postmodernism at its best is a severe recognition of the flaws of various modern techniques as a way of honestly dealing with them, the challenging of the idea that everything important has all figured out from nature, not the tearing apart of western civilization. It's an analytical technique, which can involve creating new works of its own to show contrast. In its purest form it shouldn't be a movement, fetish, fad, or any of the things many of the practitioners and detractors squabble about.
Agreed that it could be a trigger word for many, especially how it's used today. That was not my intent. I'm just used to the deeper and more traditional use of the word. It honestly didn't occur to me what all that it's evolved into. I knew better and just wasn't thinking. Apologies for the confusion.
I have never felt as creative in my life as I do now in my early 40s.
I think the best way I can describe it is that it changed for me from my 20s, where I was driven by what I wanted to do — the end result — and along the way, would pick up the knowledge needed.
It’s similar now, but it’s more driven by what I can learn along the way and how I can connect it to everything else. Experience has shown me that more things are related than you think. And I feel like drawing these connections has made me think across disciplines and to try to connect things in multiple ways during the process, which has the side effect of creative solutions or accidental findings along the way.
I have dozens of pages of notes and snippets and am constantly adding — things I could make, topics I want to learn about. The amount can be overwhelming, but it’s also liberating to write them down so that I can move on, and I feel like even doing that sort of validates that I’m “being creative” and keeping juices flowing.
Don’t get me wrong — these are not world-changing ideas. But I’ve found that letting those flow has let little solutions or ideas here and there flow easily in the midst of bigger problems.
It also helps to have internalized the idea that the value is in the execution, not the idea. This is typified by a client who wants you to sign an NDA to hear about what their idea even is. That’s a red flag that they think the golden egg is the idea itself and not the months or years, as well as discipline in saying no to a million little things, that will bring a good version of that idea to life.
> my 20s, where I was driven by what I wanted to do — the end result —
I totally understand what you mean here.
In my early 20s I was into electronic music and I wanted to make music like my idols. I was really more in love with the idea of doing it, or the end result, than the actual act of doing it. Because of that, I didn't really know anything about synths, synthesis, playing an instrument, etc. Which, ironically, are the fundamental skills needed to be able to actually do the damn thing.
Maybe if I had had someone to guide me it would have been different. Most of my friends were in rock bands, and those who were into electronic music production were just as lost as me. These days with Youtube it's a lot easier, everyone sharing their tricks and techniques.
The reference to William Utermohlen and his ongoing deterioration after his diagnosis with Alzheimer's is particularly poignant. He painted numerous self-portraits up to the point where apparently he could barely recognize his own face. His work is a vivid testament to the depredations that Alzheimer's inflicts upon creativity. [0] A bullet we should all hope we can dodge until an effective treatment is found.
Creativity isn't painting a photographic self-portrait. Creativity is, like, painting your own self over the course of your disease and so painting the disease.
My creativity has certainly changed and I'm middle-aged. I find myself constantly trying to make everything as ergonomic as possible. Years of sitting in an office chair has warped my spine, which now means I have to take regular breaks every 15 minutes or so to straighten out my back. In my early 20s I could go for long stretches in a chair, happily coding away doing 'sprints'. Now I've turned everything into a marathon, stretching out my work thinly over longer periods of time, paying attention to and mulling over details instead of glossing over them (something my younger self would do all day: gloss over everything and ignore nuance, yet still get things done)
Possibly a bit off topic, but I read this submission last night (and gave it the first upvote) because today is my 50th birthday. I am a software engineer that has followed a somewhat unconventional path, but have enjoyed my career passionately. I have told myself that turning 50 is no big deal because it's just another arbitrary day, and 99+% odds I'm well past half dead already. But, because others around me keeping making a big deal out of it, it's hard to not get caught up in some transcendental introspection.
If you're well past 50 (approaching 60 or beyond), what would you tell your 50 year old self and peers?
I'm 58, and find I don't have the creative fluidity I had when I was younger (I was an artist[0], and a musician[1] -with bad hair), but I find that I have a much more efficient and effective creative process.
Basically, my younger creativity was Jackson Pollock; splashing around a lot, with few boundaries, and my current creativity is a bit more like a scrimshaw artist; carefully making each line count, in a restricted and prescribed manner and medium.
A lot of the stuff I'm working on now, is stuff that just plain wouldn't have been possible -at all, when I was younger.
Basically, I have a great baseline for getting stuff done. I may not have the wild forest of creativity I once had, but what I imagine does actually end up existing, and at a pretty good quality level, and, sometimes, at a pretty sizable scope.
Strange that the author does not mention Japan's greatest visual artist, who by his own (and others') reckoning only became truly great in his old age. Although there are many examples of great artists who do great, and novel, work late in life, I cannot think of another major artist who peaked that late.
From the age of 6 I had a mania for drawing the shapes of things. When I was 50 I had published a universe of designs. But all I have done before the the age of 70 is not worth bothering with. At 75 I'll have learned something of the pattern of nature, of animals, of plants, of trees, birds, fish and insects. When I am 80 you will see real progress. At 90 I shall have cut my way deeply into the mystery of life itself. At 100, I shall be a marvelous artist. At 110, everything I create; a dot, a line, will jump to life as never before.
The linked article is beautifully-written and thought-provoking, excerpted from "The Age of Creativity: Art, Memory, My Father, and Me" by Emily Urquhart.
Of course creativity changes: The older one gets, the more one learns about a variety of topics and the more life experience one has. This is precisely the reason I tell folks to make sure to learn about different things, meet different sorts of people, and step out of one's comfort zone from time to time. I think this is why drugs - especially hallucinogens - are popular among some artists (and scientists that need some creativity). Drugs give experiences of different ways of thinking.
Am I the only one who reads some homoerotic fan-fiction about Michaelangelo passed off as insight, and an unskeptical recounting of a medium "revealing" something about a late artist passed off as fact, and decides that this writer clearly has absolutely nothing useful to say? Who would take such drivel seriously?
Personal, semi-poetic reflections based on wild over-speculation and an erroneous understanding of the world is fine for a diary, but this is on Hacker News with the title "Creativity Changes as We Age", alongside actual scientific studies and sound, fact-based reasoning. This person knows nothing about the science behind creativity, or really anything about science at all.
Context matters; the linked article was excerpted from a memoir, and published under "Arts and Culture". The author made no claims to scientific rigor.
Whoa. I see both; extremely clearly. Comparing an album like 'A Hard Day's Night' to 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band' surely demonstrates a clear increase in not only technique and creativity, but also originality?
You know that a young person didn't post that. If it was a young person, it's a rather sad one.
Also, I'm beginning to think that social media is getting worse or more toxic, not because of ads/privacy/etc, but because the demographics is getting older. Not only that, I bet the demands for more censorship online correlates to the aging demographics online.
It's a very optimistic view, and may be true in some limited domains and individuals but generally speaking groundbreaking creativity (as opposed to the natural creativity within us all which declines gradually but doesn't necessarily completely disappear as we age) is a property of the young, though it may vary from field to field.
e.g. pop music, maths, poetry, physics, etc; you're done by 30. Writers/composers maybe another 10 years or so.
I say that not to be negative, but to urge any young readers who feel they have a talent to not be complacent and assume they will be an exception, or that its related to family/financial/work commitments when you see the decline in your heroes and you will just avoid all that.
Even if that was true (I don't think it is) there is no point in reminding people that time is running out.
I was the most productive in music and painting during my 20s but I lived with the constant angst that I was running out of time and needed to get results as soon as possible. This was totally counterproductive. I understand now to produce better art you need to be totally focused in the process, and not the end result, or even worse, the consequences of the end result (fame, criticism, etc).
As a mathematician-turned-programmer-later-turned-writer, writing after 40 seems to be fairly productive. The quality decline seems to start at about 60-65 years of age, and might be avoidable if you can keep your brain healthy. Every single writer or journalist I know whose output started to decline exhibited signs of creeping dementia.
Mathematics is a young people game, though. Very rare to push out significant results after forty.
The tendency for creativity to happen when you are young has little to do with being young, and far more to do with being fairly new to an area of work. Creativity peaks after a few years of practice, in almost every field, because when you start out you do not know enough to be creative... and after some number of years, you get set in your own personal ways of practicing your work/art. There is a peak between those two points when you know enough to be competent, but aren't yet set in your personal ways and styles. Yes, many people hit that peak when they are young. But they also hit that peak when they are older, and try something new.
you get set in your own personal ways of practicing your work/art
I always see my creativity taper off when I stop paying close attention and I stop practicing the fundamentals. I think #1 gets harder because our downtime for reflection is often saturated by the busyness and distractions of life, and #2 gets harder because of physical aging in general.
Either way, the brain is creative in the same way the heart is for circulating blood. Continue shoveling in raw materials to the furnace of the mind and it will continue to faithfully churn out novel concepts.
This isn’t particularly interesting as a counterpoint, as there’s a known lag between creativity and recognition. To take the easiest example, Einstein published his awarded idea at 26, but he wasn’t awarded until 42.
I don't think I could have done that even ten years ago. There's a perspective you get, kind of a postmodernism, where you both understand the topics and the common ways of addressing them, then are able to move past that. I guess geniuses reach that point in their teens. It might take a bit longer for the rest of us :)
There's a thing I see with younger tech authors where they don't want to admit it, but they're for the most part chasing fame. That's a different kind of creativity. I never was good at that and it hasn't gotten much better, either. Perhaps you need a good foundation in order to "bloom" eventually?