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
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