Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
There, I said it.
Malcolm Gladwell is to Sociology what Betty Edwards is to Neuroscience.
There are PLENTY of skills that don't take 10,000 hours to master. (I would be more than willing to believe that observational drawing and basic painting would fall into that category).
Both of those you mentioned take a LIFETIME to master, IE you're dead before you get there. If you have another mindset about that, look in to another profession.
[url=http://galleryonefone.blogspot.com[/url] This would be my gallery in Sweden
This would be my Pleine Air blog
Ten years ain't a lifetime!
Though, I anticipate in advance that many would challenge Van Gogh's status as a "master!"
isn't it obvious? Humans aren't mass produced. Everybody is custom made. Some will master it in 1000 hrs some will never. Not everybody can do everything, no matter how much he works on it or how badly he wants it. We are too influenced by how we were raised and by the stuff we learned before we could read and write.
[I believe the study Gladwell was bastardizing, second hand, involved musicians. 'twould appear to be an "apples to oranges" thing from the get-go!]
I would agree that there is a difference amongst "fundamental mastery of basic skills," being an "expert" in a given field, and being a "Great Master" of a discipline.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
its just an estimate ... give or take 5 hours.
if youre serious about art, stop caring about it and just keep going (=improving).
if you aint... yeah its 10000 hours... you finished this and can go to your "how many dishes does it take to become a millionaire" survey now.
Technically, in Van Gogh's case... Those 10 years were a lifetime since he died at the end of them...
Dudes selling a self help book, take it with a grain of salt...
As for the book itself, yanno. One would think that the 10k hours rule is more of a rule of thumb and not to be taken too seriously. To some who don't have the talent, it's all about hard work and nothing but, and the whole '10k hours' rather symbolizes that. But only idiots and those that are really desperate would take the meaning too far and and spin it into the next "The Secret".
I KNOW ABOUT MY SIGNATURE
Further, what skills can you really master in less than ten thousand hours? There are plenty of things you can get as good at as you are ever going to have any need for in less than ten thousand hours (say, spreading butter), but that's not mastery. Reaching truly optimal butter spreading skills, reliably spreading butter perfectly evenly in the minimal amount of time, may well take ten thousand hours of practice.
I'd suggest you read the book instead of charging at windmills. The 10,000 hour-thing has a context.
Along similar lines, I'd like to reccommend Richard Sennett's "The Craftsman".
And maybe Eric Gill's "An Essay on Typography"
...and, more directly in response you the OP - much like the idea of muses, the left/right brain dichotomy, and formal composition, the concept of 10,000 hours has a lot to do with myth and metaphor. Like fairytales and religious texts, their worth don't always lie in the realm of the literal.
the point of the book was the ten thousand hour rule was a benchmark that was more accurate than IQ or Aptitude. He cited many examples of people who were supposedly very smart or very gifted but because of a lack of effort or a lack of emotional intelligence, they did not do as well as people who though seemingly mediocre, just knuckled down and worked hard to improve their craft. These average people actually did better over time, landed jobs in their chosen professions more, and stayed in them longer. Of course his control groups could be suspect as anything else when looking at slices of the population. I never took it as hard science but more of "hey this is interesting and seems to go against the idea of genius and talent."
There was plenty of other things that affected success, timing, economies, access to information or tools. He even uses race and culture to show how success has a different level of importance between groups.
Well, atleast 10k h is a start.
"I wish to paint in such a manner as if I were photographing dreams" - Zdzislaw BeksinskiMy Happy Little Sketchbook, please check it out and help me get better!
hey it is possible to reach 10k hours within your life time. SQUEEZE MOAR HOURS IN YOUR SCHEDULE DAILY!! xD
Last edited by ArtsySiridean; March 26th, 2011 at 11:53 AM.
I sculpted a raccoon head out of aluminum foil. That kinda came out OK. But, it's probably not going to evolve into something that makes me $250,000/yr like Gladwell makes writing for "The New Yorker."
But, I did forget to slam Damien Hirst! Here we go: Malcolm Gladwell is the Damien Hirst of journalism.
That's a pretty narrow focus. And from that, we get the fallacy that ANYONE can be an expert in ANYTHING by deliberately practicing for 10,000 hours.
And, again, mastery and expertise would appear to be two different animals.