You’re reading Signal vs. Noise, a publication about the web by 37signals since 1999.

I can’t tell if the original author is making a point using irony, or if you’re calling them out for doing a sub-standard job when describing how much artists strive not to do a sub-standard job.

The sics kind of get in the way. Maybe “they [are]”, “[evade]” would flow better?

Is that a quote?

From how it’s presented, it wasn’t immediately obvious.

I think this can happen for anything where there can be a subjective idea of what’s “good”—the successful start to think things like “really? people like what I did?” or “it worked? how did that work?” And it’s these sorts of individuals that we need to seek out and cultivate. They have whatever the opposite of fundamental attribution error is… Rather than lay back and coast, they can’t accept that they were responsible for a great outcome and continue to try harder and improve in spite of their success.

Using sic incorrectly

Quite a bit of truth to this but I don’t think it’s the whole story. Some creative people – even when they recognize what they’ve done well – see a pile of glaring flaws that need correction even when those flaws are insignificant to everyone else. But all the good ones I know do push themselves relentlessly.

It was great. Thanks for sharing it with us….....

The sentiment is spot on. Many creative people are guarded with their work because they never feel its [sic] good enough. Take Walt Whitman, who published several revisions of Leaves of Grass, never really satisfied, even though it is considered a classic work.

artists work with passion or sentiment,inspiration.these shows without rules.great revenues with big risk

Not only do I think Redding’s wrong, I find that idea of universal fraudulence to be pernicious. The effect of normalizing it is a distortion field that keeps us poking and prying into others’ lives on the hunch there’s a lie beneath it all. It’s a triumph for the supermarket tabloids and it’s rotten through and through.

Feeling like you’re a fraud is not universal to artists or to anybody else. Feeling flawed or vulnerable, sure. Part of growing up is learning that the people we look up to are imperfect - they drink too much, they cheat on their spouses, they take the handicapped spot when nobody’s around. It’s a real let-down, but if you’ve got any self-respect you get over it. You don’t prowl for signs of weakness; you accept that vulnerability’s part of the deal. And eventually you even come to see that the world is full of people capable of emerging from an honest self-appraisal with real confidence - people who wake each day grateful for the unique mix of genes, nurturing, and market circumstances that underwrite their talent, who enjoy putting their gifts to use however it works out. The most creative and fascinating people I know are like this.

So bollocks, I say. Bollocks.

I find that a bit sad.

I doubt that fear is absolutely necessary to produce good work. That it’s there lessens their quality of life and allows them to be exploited.

Read the entire blog post if you want the full context. Starting at the beginning of Redding’s blog will also give you a better idea of where he is coming from (and his full perspective). Linds passed away on Nov. 1st.

http://www.campaignbriefasia.com/2012/11/vale-linds-redding—-art-direc.html