The importance of being prolific
chicagotribune.com
chicagotribune.com
But I don't think there's one process that's better that the other - outputting new works frequently vs working many years on the same work - and this article felt quite biased against the latter. It never mentions how a work can remarkably stand out in beautiful ways when the author takes the time to let his work grow and evolve during development, even if that means giving into to obsession to details. Think of Kubrick's 2001 or The Shining, Valve's Portal 2. To turn like they did, these works could not have been rushed out. Or think about how the quality of Stephen King's Dark Tower arguably declined once the author decided to accelerate the writing of the last volumes (V, VI and VII) (on the side of that argument, Stephen King has recently stated in interviews that he's thinking about rewriting major parts of those last volumes, like removing himself as a character).
There are obviously many examples of amazing works that were created in a rush of luck and intuition, and of incredibly long processes that turned into failures. But some of the best works in history took years, and grew older alongside their artists before being released. In the end it's about the artist finding the right process for his work and career, whether or not that meets this article's definition of "prolific". Even if the audience has to wait a decade for a work, if the process was the right for that work, it will still be the most beneficial call for the audience.
That game doesn't feel like the most polished thing ever, but the details are sure staggering. Right now, the author is working on making the larger world come alive. Eventually, you will be able to laid siege, plunders towns, and intercept opposing armies yourself.
Other artists learn through making many works, being prolific, and gradually accumulating knowledge that ultimately leads them to produce great works—and often do so later in their careers.
These two ideas obviously aren't binaries, but they provide useful ways to think about art and being an artist.
I'm thinking of how things have changed over the past 100 years in science, for example, where it's become much more common to be prolific. One reason, imo, is that in the past you were judged (by a smaller group of peers) more by the quality of each publication: it reflected really badly if you wasted everyone's time by publishing something mediocre. Better to put in a little more effort and write fewer, better journal articles. Now, the incentives are different, and it's better to shotgun out the articles, because you're typically judged by your best articles, or even by some measure of throughput like total citation count or h-index, not by your average or worst article.
(This sort of huge randomness seems possible to me - I think every author or creator has the feeling, at some point, that 'X is not my best or most interesting work, why does everyone like it so much?' Certainly in reading author interviews I've noted that they seem routinely surprised that one particular novel or series took off and made them famous, rather than another.)
But I think Einstein published quite a lot, actually, which would satisfy the equal-odds rule: I recall reading someone mentioning that only one paper of Einstein underwent peer review out of ~100 published, and now that I look, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications... is a very long page.
The topic is very interesting but I believe it is more related to personalities. Some people are more compatible to a prolific personality and some not. Others never release, and only in this case is where the sin appears.
Conversely I wish I could be prodigious quantitatively. I have a bunch of projects that are basically total crap, just exercises in learning stuff. I'd trade them all for one really awesome, world-changing project. I kind of suck at ideas though.
Mostly that means your projects will appealmto people with the same tastes as you.
Produce more, just means you get more practise.
By nature, I've always been a perfectionist and tinkerer, and while there are benefits to that mentality, there are also severe drawbacks. The inability to start or finish projects being at the top of that list. I've found that setting (and sticking to) aggressive deadlines provides me with a focus and directive that I simply can't get from working any other way.
There is a liberating feeling in the idea of not coveting any single project or piece of work. This sounds counter-intuitive, but when you see each piece of work as a result of whatever constraints you're working within, rather than a cherished opus that will define your life for years to come, it releases a lot of pressure and allows you to focus. I think it's safe to say that a lot of artists wouldn't be where they are were it not for their willingness to experiment often and fail often.
Of course, there's also the view that we're still too close to the 00's to properly realize what identified it.