I like this article, but on some level I vehemently disagree with it?

The summary is this:

  > A writer needs readers ... Any worthy pursuit needs a mat.
  > ... Better to be pinned in public with courage than to train
  > endlessly in private like a coward.

And then I think of various shut-in artists that I admire. Take, for example, Henry Darger[1]. He clearly did not seek public recognition; he never showed his work to anyone. But I find it beautiful and fascinating. He was dealing with various internal issues through his art, and I feel lucky to observe it, even long after his death.

If I produced art like Darger (or Van Gogh or Kafka or others who did not try to push their work into the public view), I would be happy with myself.

But, on the other hand, I do appreciate some aspect of this article's thesis. "Putting yourself out there" does have value. This line from the article resonates with me:

  > Yet the Cave, despite its darkness of solitude and dampness from
  > sweat and suffer-porn, is comfortable. It lets us tinker with
  > our own delusions.

There is a certain risk of complacency when you spend a long time in your own bubble. Knowing that you'll be under the public eye does help dissolve that complacency, I find.

But it's not necessarily the solution. Some people get addicted to public recognition, and it twists their work for the worse. Some people know they've done something good, put it out for people to see, but don't receive the recognition they wish they had, and get depressed. Nick Drake comes to mind.

I think it really comes down to your own personality and which of these traps you're prone to fall for. Once again, "know thyself" is the real nut worth cracking.

Anyway, good article. Made me think (:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Darger also see various images of his work at: https://www.wikiart.org/en/henry-darger

▲ altcognito 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I think the distinction is just the underlying purpose. If you are doing art for arts sake then just do your thing. (and there is nothing wrong with that) It may even be where you spend the majority of your time if you are lucky enough to do that.

But if you are labouring under the belief that your art has human value to others, you must put it out in the world, and often the sooner the better!

▲

card_zero 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

How far out into the world? Tolkien wrote The Hobbit for his kids, after dabbling in writing stories for the preceding 10 years or maybe longer, and he showed them to his friends sometimes, and a friend showed it to her friend who showed it to her boss, who published books, and this chain of events led to Tolkien having to write The Lord of the Rings. He wasn't exactly shielding his work from criticism, by writing for friends and family, but he wasn't throwing himself to the lions either, because why?

▲

ang_cire 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By "human value", do you actually mean "monetary value"?

Many of the most famous artists were unknown or unappreciated in their time, and if they'd asked the people around them whether their art had value we'd likely not have half of the Louvre.

	▲	altcognito 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nope, not necessarily! That's a good example!