The doer wants acknowledgment for their work. They want people to scream their hosannas. But criticism is democratic.
Not everyone likes Radiohead’s last album. Every Trump tweet draws liberal contestants. Where you fall in the Messi versus Ronaldo or Jordan versus Lebron debate could be a preference based on your birth date. Opines literary critic and poet Adam Kirsch:
“Everyone brings his or her own values and standards to the work of judging. This means that it is also, essentially, democratic. No canon of taste or critical authority can compel people to like what they don’t like.”
As an artist, athlete, CEO, US president, some criticism is better than none at all. My newest book Train of Thought has zero reviews. I’d rather have one star and a bad review just to confirm that someone had a look.
Criticism is integral to an informed democracy. Even the maker is a critic. Their rebuttals are neither valid nor invalid but mere reason. Conversely, the reviewer is also a professional; even a stream of invective is a manifestation of analysis and interpretation.
Perhaps it is the inner-critic that is the most annoying of all. It’s the one that wants both artist and analyst to say and do nothing but remain in a state of paralysis.
What’s most important therefore is the opinion itself. Consent is an illusion reserved for lemmings. Now feel free to criticize this post in the comments below.
They say write to be understood. But what’s the point in spelling it all out?
It doesn’t hurt to make an obscure reference here and there to keep the reader guessing. Said author Jonathan Franzen in lunch with the Financial Times:
“I think you have to have a few things that you have to kind of chew on to get.”
When you first listen to a new Radiohead song, something about it sounds off. But after a few listens, the sounds in between become just as important as Thom Yorke’s lyrics. Nothing makes sense, but the emotional tug works.
It shouldn’t be the author or musicians goal to demystify everything. The maker is often still figuring it out himself, going against their own interpretation.
Things are more interesting and potentially more truthful around the edges. This applies to anyone, from politicians to musicians.
Politicians that speak the truth become outsiders. But politicians who abuse the ‘outsider’ status to pander to populist voters squander their authenticity. They can be as thoughtful as Bernie Sanders or as morally corrupt and downright offensive as Trump.
Truth is in the extremes.
There is no noise in the far tails.
The artist also treads a fine line between a unique creative process to one that can become manufactured. Take the case of MIA; the Internet made her a star and removed her underground status along with it. Another case and point: Diplo, once a revered beat-smith from Florida, now produces hits for Justin Bieber.
The challenge for politicians and artists alike or companies like Apple, therefore, seems to be retaining their edginess despite a growth in popularity. Radiohead may be the paragon of balancing mainstream success while maintaining outsider status. By changing up their sound on each album, they’re able to appear credible to both the experimental listener and the person seeking the wisdom of crowds.
So how does a politician or artists push the boundaries without manipulating their uniqueness to the point of appearing fake? It depends on how honest they are in their approach. If the work is worth talking about, it’ll spread along with its originality.
Writer’s block is a fallacy, according to Seth Godin. You just write bad sentences and bad ideas until you something good to play with. After all, whoever got talker’s block?
Seth’s thoughts on social media are also thought-provoking and to the point. If you listen to his latest interview with Brian Koppelman, you’ll hear Seth say this:
“Social media is based on infinity. If you look at how many Facebook shares you got, if you look at how many Twitter followers you have, you have just enrolled in the wrong dialogue with yourself. I don’t read my Amazon reviews. I don’t look at my Google Analytics. I have no idea whether my subscriber base is going up or down. I don’t know if the the buzz is about something I did on Facebook because none of those things helped me do better work.
Seth Godin was popular as an author before he even started blogging every day. He doesn’t need to gain new fans nor expand his fan base by playing the system and responding to his fans on social networks–you’re either in his tribe or your not. Furthermore, he wouldn’t participate in social media even if he were just getting started today. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram–all that stuff gets in the way of doing what matters which is, first and foremost, the work.
Work requires tremendous focus. Thom Yorke goes off the grid when he records a new album. When some authors write books, they announce their departure from Twitter. Here’s one from author Teju Cole back in 2014. Note: he reemerged on Instagram about a year later.
Social media is hard to ignore. For one, it’s incredibly addicting, like playing the Vegas slot machines. You just want to keep pleasing the crowds which if you’re not careful, will start programming your thinking. You’ll begin to publish things that satisfy an audience rather than yourself.
As Maria Popova mentioned in a Tim Ferriss Podcast when Kurt Vonnegut said “write to please just one person” what he was really saying was to write for yourself. Still, there are tremendous benefits if you use social networks as a tool to connect with like-minded people that you hope one to meet in real life.
As Seth would go on to say in an interview with Tim Ferriss, we work for Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, etc. They make money breaking our individual and collective focus, tying our identity to their velocity. Consequently, we start avoiding the work that’ll outlast all of them.
PS. If you do want to reach out to Seth, he’s good about responding to email. But he still prefers you email Tim Ferriss instead.