then they're using terrible phrasing, because it implied to me, especially with the "paid for it" part, that they're saying that all drawing and representational art should not be done out of inspiration but out of a sense of capitalistic duty and "tolling the bell".
not to mention that the notion that you get better this way is extremely, painfully neurotypical. many many people simply cannot do anything without the "inspiration" to do it. which wouldn't matter if they weren't also denied medicine and resources they need to get that "inspiration". these notions of discipline are so silly and moralistic to anyone who's brain doesn't work in the "optimal" neurotypical way.
as someone who understands my own brain, i've found that when i "force" myself to do something i can do it for a couple days, maybe, but in the long term i will simply stop doing it. the only way to consistently do something is to "feed" my inspiration by doing things i enjoy with that activity as well.
neurotypical people can "force" themselves to do something but anyone with ADHD or similar will simply not be able to do it, especially not to the same extent. my problem with a lot of art advice is that it falls under this same neurotypical outlook on skill and, ultimately, personal value, which will ultimately coalesce into finding neurodivergent people less valuable. But this internal bias is never examined because it is too difficult/complicated for neurodivergent people to imagine that some people simply can't force themselves to do things the way they can.
the only way to consistently do something is to “feed” my inspiration by doing things i enjoy with that activity as well.
I would say that this is a form of discipline. It's not just about the Calvinist idea of subjecting yourself to pain because it's morally righteous, it's creating and sticking to a schedule of practice. It doesn't matter whether that practice is gamified or not, because the thousands of hours of practice is what makes you good at something regardless of your nuerotypicality. And yeah I would agree that the OP frames it in the Calvinist sense of self flagellation rather than the more broad definition that I have.
The next step though, is realizing that skill isn't necessary to do art, and I think that's where the original post either needs more context or misses the mark. Make no mistake, everyone need tons of practice to be a skilled artist, but a lot of people only judge art through the lens of the artist's skill, and that's not a healthy way to look at it. Art can be good even if there isn't much technical skill behind it, and art can be worthwhile even if it isn't good. People who say that you need to practice to draw at all are fixated on the idea of art needing to be saleable and need to get over themselves.
Ehh I still think there's a tendency to associate the quality of art exclusively with its technical aspect, and that that is partially driven by capitalist productivity brain.
yes, this is all correct. reframing discipline as a concept is not one i've actually considered until now really
the way i've thought of it is by taking two different kinds of enjoyment from it at once. both the sense of accomplishment from more "skilled" art, and the sense of joy and experimentation from art in general. i'm not sure how others do it but it's the only way i've been able to function
there are numerous ways around this. reformatting course structures to appeal more to ADHD mindsets, teaching people to do more "interesting" (difficult) things and then teaching them the things they need to actually do it well afterwards, once they get the "craving", changing education to focus on large jumps in progress instead of small improvements, but capitalistic structure and profit-seeking ensures that education will only function as intended for the majority, and anyone outside of it is simply lost/blamed for the system's failures
you're completely right, but the part that annoys me is not this random extremely helpful person having a bad take (he literally is teaching me so much why should i care?), but the fact that it's shared by the entire educational complex
then they're using terrible phrasing, because it implied to me, especially with the "paid for it" part, that they're saying that all drawing and representational art should not be done out of inspiration but out of a sense of capitalistic duty and "tolling the bell".
not to mention that the notion that you get better this way is extremely, painfully neurotypical. many many people simply cannot do anything without the "inspiration" to do it. which wouldn't matter if they weren't also denied medicine and resources they need to get that "inspiration". these notions of discipline are so silly and moralistic to anyone who's brain doesn't work in the "optimal" neurotypical way.
as someone who understands my own brain, i've found that when i "force" myself to do something i can do it for a couple days, maybe, but in the long term i will simply stop doing it. the only way to consistently do something is to "feed" my inspiration by doing things i enjoy with that activity as well.
neurotypical people can "force" themselves to do something but anyone with ADHD or similar will simply not be able to do it, especially not to the same extent. my problem with a lot of art advice is that it falls under this same neurotypical outlook on skill and, ultimately, personal value, which will ultimately coalesce into finding neurodivergent people less valuable. But this internal bias is never examined because it is too difficult/complicated for neurodivergent people to imagine that some people simply can't force themselves to do things the way they can.
I would say that this is a form of discipline. It's not just about the Calvinist idea of subjecting yourself to pain because it's morally righteous, it's creating and sticking to a schedule of practice. It doesn't matter whether that practice is gamified or not, because the thousands of hours of practice is what makes you good at something regardless of your nuerotypicality. And yeah I would agree that the OP frames it in the Calvinist sense of self flagellation rather than the more broad definition that I have.
The next step though, is realizing that skill isn't necessary to do art, and I think that's where the original post either needs more context or misses the mark. Make no mistake, everyone need tons of practice to be a skilled artist, but a lot of people only judge art through the lens of the artist's skill, and that's not a healthy way to look at it. Art can be good even if there isn't much technical skill behind it, and art can be worthwhile even if it isn't good. People who say that you need to practice to draw at all are fixated on the idea of art needing to be saleable and need to get over themselves.
deleted by creator
Ehh I still think there's a tendency to associate the quality of art exclusively with its technical aspect, and that that is partially driven by capitalist productivity brain.
yes, this is all correct. reframing discipline as a concept is not one i've actually considered until now really
the way i've thought of it is by taking two different kinds of enjoyment from it at once. both the sense of accomplishment from more "skilled" art, and the sense of joy and experimentation from art in general. i'm not sure how others do it but it's the only way i've been able to function
there are numerous ways around this. reformatting course structures to appeal more to ADHD mindsets, teaching people to do more "interesting" (difficult) things and then teaching them the things they need to actually do it well afterwards, once they get the "craving", changing education to focus on large jumps in progress instead of small improvements, but capitalistic structure and profit-seeking ensures that education will only function as intended for the majority, and anyone outside of it is simply lost/blamed for the system's failures
deleted by creator
you're completely right, but the part that annoys me is not this random extremely helpful person having a bad take (he literally is teaching me so much why should i care?), but the fact that it's shared by the entire educational complex