Entrepreneurship is an Art not a Job | Hacker News Reader

Entrepreneurship is an Art not a Job

steveblank.com

103 pointsrevorad20 comments

"to build early stage ventures, entrepreneurship would become a “science,” and anyone could do it."

Just because something becomes a 'science' it does not mean that everybody can do it. Something is a science if you use the scientific method in it: come up with falsifiable hypotheses. (Certainly this is the case in enterpreneurship.) But coming up with hypotheses is not automated in any of the sciences. In fact you have disruptive ideas, 'paradigm-shifts' (see Kuhn) and all those 'creative' things in science too.

Creativity is needed to create great things in different fields. Enterpreneurs, hackers, engineers, inventors, scientists, mathematicians, artists: all can be creative and be in the 'flow' when building something. Picking artists and enterpreneurs seems to be totally arbitrary for me. (Although feeling like an artist is probably cool. (See 'hackers and painters'.))

That's a really good point. And it reminds me that there is a really cool book titled How Mathematicians Think[1] that goes into much detail about how mathematics is a creative activity and not just a mechanical process (as some people seem to believe.)

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/How-Mathematicians-Think-Contradiction...

I'm skeptical of his perspective that there's something uniquely creative about founders that doesn't apply to everybody. Programs that make resources available, provide support networks, and teach skills all increase entrepreneurship (microloans are a great example). Totally agreed that there's an art to entrepreneurship, but the same can be said about programming, journalism, politics, or any other kind of profession.

I would like to agree with this and hope this is true. As Steve Jobs once said he would much rather be considered as builder rather than trader. And so building part of entrepreneurship is more like an art. As unpredictable and challenging starting up a company is, I would like to think that it is the art aspect of it that makes it somewhat fun as well. As difficult, unpredictable & dangerous doing a startup may be, there must be this fun aspect of it(which is more artistic) that makes it fulfilling. Else it will be just like another exam(to be passed, graded to be acquired).

Wow, crazy timing. I caught up last night with a friend with an Angelpad startup that asked me what my criticisms of lean were and this essay explains the gist of it.

What we're really talking about is taste. All the main product development methodologies skirt around the issue, whether it's lean, ux, agile, or etc. You can gather feedback and iterate through product ideas all you want, but it's up to you whether you have good ideas or if you're just a monkey throwing poop on the wall to see what sticks.

Wow. Yesterday I wrote and submitted this exact same theme.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387227

It's very interesting how when a community reads the same material, various people will have similar responses even though they do not coordinate with each other. You see the same thing many times with inventions: it's not unusual for separate inventors to invent the same thing on opposite sides of the world without either having any idea what the other is up to.

It's a weird feeling to spend time writing an essay, thinking that you are hitting a problem from an unique angle, then see another person who took the same route.

Of course Steve's essay is a lot better.

I think the key thing to note is that the atmosphere that we live in as technologists -- architecture, programming languages, physics, science, engineering, etc -- prepares us in exactly the opposite way required for us to be successful entrepreneurs. Our world is full of information and culture on how to be good performers, not creators. Even when we do our best to share with each other what works or doesn't work, we do it in terms of performance -- exactly the opposite paradigm from what's needed.

Took me a long, long time to figure that out, and I still have a hard time with it. I wished somebody would have helped me with this when I was in my twenties.

EDIT: I want to hit this one more time, just to make sure I got it.

Let's assume we were all great music composers, like Beethoven. We set up an online community and folks drop by to share and talk.

To put it in Steve's terms, the things on the online community would all be about performing, not creating. They'd have to be. That's the nature of how text works. We'd be talking about the various kinds of pianos, oddball musical scales and their effects on voice harmonization, how to deal with agents, controversies and scandals inside the music industry, or what our work habits are like -- exactly the kinds of article you see on HN everyday.

But none of that shit is important -- or maybe it's better to say that _all_ of it is important, but only in how hundreds or thousands of these little pieces comes together to make a greater whole that's uniquely assembled by each entrepreneur, not in themselves. It's all details and shop-talk. People dropping by who also want to be great composers can easily drift into the idea that somehow these ancillary things are critical parts of what it takes to be a great artist. "John Williams was great. Did you see that sequencing tool he is using?" subtly becomes "If you want to write great music, you'll need a great sequencing tool" which then becomes "Top 20 sequencing tools to make your music shine" Then a hundred people read this and drift off and spend 3 months learning sequencing tools instead of learning how to write tunes that people love. This can be very harmful.

We're out in tools, gossip, and implementation-land when the key problem is learning how to create something people want. It's a creation problem, not an implementation problem. Nobody who knows what they are doing cares what kind of stool Beethoven sat on everyday while he was writing his Ninth Symphony. And those who do care either realize how microscopically insignificant it is, or are sadly ignorant of anything to do with composing.

This. This is why HN can only ever have very limited value to a person who wants their own startup. It's not the people, or the Arc program structure, or the even the topics that get submitted and upvoted. It's that you don't teach creativity by sitting around talking and reading about it. In almost every art, it's a mentor-apprentice, tell-share-do-observe-create-influence paradigm, not passive absorption of technical details and performance-related tips. This is one of the reasons the cofounder concept is so powerful, it's the reason that incubators help more than do-it-yourself-guys, it's the reason larger communities like SV end up spawning off so many crazily-unique ideas.

the original talk on entrepreneurs as artists can be found at ~18:40 here: http://gigaom.com/2011/03/27/steveblank/

This is perhaps the most insightful comment I've ever read on Hacker News.

"But it’s more likely that until we truly understand how to teach creativity, their numbers are limited."

I don't believe creativity can be taught. Not now, not ever. Although everyone can be creative to an extent, you must have the drive to spend time and effort thinking about what's in front of you, and how to creatively change that. Most people are interested in being participants, and not willing to put the extra mental effort to go beyond this. Some however enjoy the creative process more so than participating.

I tend to think of "creativity" as something like the physical attribute of "quickness" which is really disguised strength. If you have a solid intellectual background, good work ethic, and drive, then you've laid the basis for creativity. Doesn't mean it will actually manifest itself, but you've increased the likelihood.

I disagree. Solid intellectual background, good work ethic have nothing to do with creativity, nor do they lay a "basis" for it. From personal experience, I have know so many who have those attributes, but are just participants in the system. Sure, they excel, and are successful people, but devoid of creativity entirely. In fact you can argue, people who are successful inside the system because they have the attributes you mentioned, are the least motivated to challenge the status quo. They have much to lose.

And I disagree too. If you look at actual "creative" people throughout history they generally mastered what existed before them before making a leap beyond. Picasso was skilled at traditional art and sculpture before he created cubism. Shakespeare wrote sonnets, comedies, and histories (at that time, these were accepted, even tired genres) and was very much a "participant in the system" before transcending that same system. Leonardo Da Vinci was an apprentice to another artist during his early career.

We live in an era where ego gratification makes far too many people think they're creative when really they don't even have the tools developed to be creative.

> In fact you can argue, people who are successful inside the system because they have the attributes you mentioned, are the least motivated to challenge the status quo.

Confidence that your contribution is worthwhile goes a long way. Most of the people I know that do not consider themselves to be "creative" are simply unwilling to take the risk that their final product will not be praised/enjoyed. They fool themselves into believing that a work is wasted time if it is not the next Mona Lisa.

I think there is also a "blank page" component. They worry about wasting time and having to redo work. Many people are simply unsure where to start, focused on the forest when they haven't yet created the first tree. They're not comfortable working on different components of the problem and trusting that at some point they'll be able to connect the dots.

Creative entrepreneurs have programmed themselves to see the journey as the reward, learning at every step regardless of outcome and applying those lessons immediately to the following steps. They redo, pivot or do whatever is necessary to get closer to the goal because they've realized (subconsciously) that the current action is already in the past. They can't change the past so moving forward is the only action they are concerned with.

I agree it probably can't be taught, but I think it can be elicited and inspired -- and I'm quite certain it can be discouraged and often even suppressed.

If we want more creativity in the world, I think the first order of business is to stop embracing educational systems that punish it, or at the very least leave no time for it.

I don't know. I think more creativity gets crushed after people get out of school and go into jobs.

Regardless of what is true, what we should believe is that key entrepreneurial factors such as determination and creativity/taste can be learned and improved. If not, you quickly come to build the fallacy that we can never be the genius of a Shakespeare or Einstein, so why even try?[1]

Academically, it would be very interesting to find where the line can be drawn between 'in-born character traits' and 'soft skills.' In reality, you have daily rituals and activities designed to reinforce "disciple"; you have millions of dollars of investment in "leadership" training (of what quality is another conversation); and "morality" training that often takes place on (insert religious day of the week). Euripides will tell you that "Courage may be taught as a child is taught to speak." I do not claim to have extensive knowledge in learning theory, but at least some portion of our prior actions and experiences form the foundation for future actions.

Personally, I would say you train such skills by making a person take one action with the quality you seek, and then build upon that to have them take another. You change a person's environment, give them the tools to lower the 'barrier to entry' cost, and set up a result/reward feedback loop. E.g, basic training.

Final aside: in this conversation, we seem to have muddled the differentiation between the trait of creativity and the act of initiating and producing.

[1] paraphase of http://www.paulgraham.com/hs.html

The simple idea that there can be a large creative component to activities like programming or starting a business seems to invariably send this community into a full-on circle jerk.

Yes, it feels great, but please consider whether it is a worthwhile habit to cultivate.

Steve makes good points, but I can't agree with his conclusion. I believe that there are many other ways than education to encourage artists. Opportunity and necessity, for example, will by themselves lead to a great increase in the number of entreprenartists, without any changes in education methods.

My full thoughts here: http://swombat.com/2011/3/31/entrepreneurship-art

I'm not ready to go the full distance to Steve's conclusion either. I love Steve's work, but he has a tendency to over-generalize, systematize, and the regurgitate whatever he's been absorbing. It's a great habit, and it helps tremendously to advance the conversation along, but it can lead folks to believe there's a lot more surety in his conclusions than there actually is. Great structure and descriptions are a key part of finding a solution, but they are not a solution in themselves.

If we agree that art plays a huge role here, then the next logical question is: how do you teach people to be a good artist?

I'm not a guy who believes you are just "born with it". I think a vast amount of stuff can be ingrained into just about anybody. But I don't think this general problem has been adequately solved by anybody in any artistic field, must less entrepreneurship.

The cool thing is that it gives us a lot of places and communities to turn to in order to look at how various inculcation systems work.

If Steve Blank could teach a really effective one semester course on how to be a successful entrepreneur, then anyone who could do well in his course could become rich and we'd have a lot more rich people. But having many more rich people encounters some problems with the size of the whole pie so that I have to doubt that Blank's course can do much! :-)!!

His current statement that entrepreneurship is an "art" seems to be an escape to the land where we don't understand artists and don't get blamed for not understanding!

Yes, suppose we accept that, except for luck, some 'creativity' is needed for successful entrepreneurship. Well, my view is that the first 20-30 years of life are not very good for teaching creativity!

I finally learned how to be creative in math, but the lessons were not taught or even hinted at in school! Here's a nutshell recipe:

First have to guess the result (theorem) and then have to guess at a good way to confirm (prove) it. The key is some good guessing. Here are five points about such guessing:

1. Guessing Machine.

So, have a 'guessing machine', a bit wild and unconstrained! To find some really big, new ideas, let the guessing machine be wild!

2. Intuitive Models.

Have some 'intuitive models'. Why just intuitive? Because typically don't know enough yet to make them solid.

2.1 Connections.

Sometimes two apparently quite different parts of math seem to have a glimmer of something in common, and maybe they do and the glimmer is from something deep and powerful. Broadly a relatively powerful approach in math is to get to the same result two different ways, thus, showing something in common and getting some new connections.

2.2 Patterns.

Sometimes work by patterns and analogies: E.g., once I had a result that said that, along with some other properties, I could have a function differentiable k times for any positive integer k. So, then by a 'pattern', a guess would be that I could still have those other properties and a function infinitely differentiable. Yup, a few hours later, I did.

3. Filtering.

3.1 Constraints. Use what already know is true and is false to constrain or filter guesses. Be a little flexible and not too literal on the filtering: Maybe some small changes would make something true now false or something false now true.

3.2 Intuitive Models.

The intuitive models can be used to filter the results from the guessing machine. So, maybe guess that A is true. Then roughly, just intuitively, it looks like maybe B and C are true. But then D would have to be true, but we know that D is false. So, if want to invest more time in this guess, then check more carefully that B and C have to follow; otherwise save time for now and guess that A is false.

4. Special Cases.

Typically do understand some special cases, maybe just some very simple, contrived special cases. With these can do some more filtering.

5. Proofs.

So, when have what appears to be a theorem, do some more guessing about how to prove it. Commonly the guessing that led to the theorem will also help in guessing how to prove it. In the guesses, be sure actually to make some crucial use of all the hypotheses or just drop any unused hypotheses. If you are fairly sure that all the hypotheses are needed, then in looking for a proof realize that need a proof that actually uses all the hypotheses.

Such means, and likely more, worked for me in being 'creative' in math. Your mileage may vary! Adapt, revise, extend, and improve as suits your work!

For business in Web 2.0 and 'consumer Internet', sure, need to give the users something they like enough to become "engaged" (F. Wilson).

One way to do that is to play on 'art' as in the common definition "the communication, interpretation of human experience, emotion". Look at some examples of art and see how well this definition fits. More generally, get some understanding of what gets or might get people "engaged". To check ideas, look at examples of where people do get engaged.

For guesses at what might get a lot of people engaged, look at someone you know best of all, yourself. Or, for something less general and simpler, start with a problem you would like to have solved.

For how to be as 'creative' as in, say,

Notre Dame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts5t_5HeECE

Meditation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zmgfBKuIrk

Lohengrin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7prUFflX0_E

Tristan und Isolde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktwPGCR7Yw

Parsifal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn3JV3GHRE&NR=1

clearly that's doable but more difficult!

For more, no doubt the central key is that mechanism we do not know how to explain, human intelligence. Typically that work is done between two ears in a quiet room considering all that know and can guess, sometimes considers 'causes', and has enough freedom to find some really good, new ideas but enough discipline not to go off into nonsense land.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com