Critics and practitioners

“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.” – Picasso (via Ribbonfarm)

When I was a kid, I tagged along with my grandfather who was an oboist in a big city symphony. I was struck by the dramatic discrepancy between the culture of the audience and the culture of the musicians. Before the show, the audience attended fancy events, and talked in abstract terms about classical music. After the show, the musicians played poker, told jokes, swigged bourbon, and traded tips about the best places to get parts for their instruments.

In the context of startups, it’s convenient to read the Picasso quote as a tidy summarization of the difference between critics (VCs and the tech press) and practitioners (entrepreneurs). There is some truth to this. When entrepreneurs get together, they tend to talk about tactical details. VCs and the press talk about trends, markets, and other abstractions.

But Picasso was just being modest. He thought about the meaning of his art far more deeply than his critics did. The same is true of great entrepreneurs. “Cheap turpentine” is important, but so is “Form and Structure and Meaning”. The best ideas emerge from the interplay between the two modes of thought.

Adham Hussein

Brilliantly put. The struggle between these two modes of thinking is also an entrepreneurs ongoing challenge, striking the fine balance between thinking about optimization and efficiency vs strategy and product innovation

http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

Thanks. Yes, it is a very difficult trade off. It starts with how you choose to spend your time. I tended to allocate a lot of time to “Meaning and Structure” which in some cases worked and in some cases didn’t.

Anonymous

Agree. That said, ”Cheap turpentine is important, but so is Form and Structure and Meaning” I will add “but so is to avoid time-to-time the influence from Angels, VCs and The Press as well as peers (entrepreneus), pick up a brush, paint and take some risk”

p.s. Check El Greco’s and Picasso’s work one day. You can see in some of Picasso’s work right away the parallel with El Greco’s

http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

I think I’d agree with that. Great advice.

http://twitter.com/#!/chrishuntis/ chrishuntis

the tech press is a form of bad entertainment. hyping, simplifying, and modifying stories to maximise ad revenues.

to read some of this “press” is to pay to be made more stupid.

http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

I think some of it is good, but generally agree with you that most of it is bad. Too much of a focus on financings, acquisitions, and other money related activities and very little focus on actual tech and products.

http://twitter.com/#!/chrishuntis/ chrishuntis

i have other issues with it. such as stories being fuelled by press releases, the speculative nature of “breaking-news”, the lack of technical chops on journalists (which i’ve seen you tweet about).
http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

That’s it exactly. Too much focus on the money and too little on technology.

Do you ever notice when somebody doesn’t understand something or even want to understand it they will always ask how much does/did it cost?

The really sad part is that they don’t even get the money part right as they report it as if somebody got out a checkbook and bought common shares versus buying preferred shares that have a two inch dealbook defining their terms.

Anonymous

Bravo Chris
Pingback: Sunday links: planning for success | Abnormal Returns
Pingback: Picasso On Conversations | feed on my links
http://shanacarp.com/essays ShanaC

Which is why you need to educate towards both.
http://twitter.com/lchamberlin Luke Chamberlin

I almost agree with your last point but I think there is a big difference in the way that artists think about abstractions versus critics.

Here’s where I think the difference lies: artists (entrepreneurs, musicians, i.e. makers and creators) know that form, structure and meaning are all side effects of their direct actions. You can’t make a painting feel sad, but you can add more blue, darken the shadows, change the perspective. You have direct control over these things (the tactics) but you can’t control the sadness. It’s a side effect and your control over it is never perfect.

The true artists have experience that allows them to understand the relationship between direct action and the ultimate effect, which is where their real skill lies.

Critics approach these abstractions as if you can somehow create them directly. They don’t understand the link between action and effect as well because they don’t have the necessary experience. That’s why you hear them say things like, “why is it so difficult to write a great novel?” or “if only this startup had done X this wouldn’t have happened”. They don’t understand that the step where action is translated into outcome is a mysterious one that no one controls perfectly.

Coincidentally, my grandfather also plays the oboe! He’s 86 and still playing.

http://www.cdixon.org/ chris dixon

That’s a good point. I don’t know much about art so I’ll stick to startups. In startups, you need to understand details (technical, user experience, user needs etc) but it is also important to understand how your product will succeed not just now but in 3-5 years. That requires thinking about trends etc. I’ve seen founders fall too far on one side or the other. Too abstract and the pitch sounds great to investors but the product and execution is weak. Too detailed and you create something nice that the world doesn’t need (e.g. another photo sharing app).
http://twitter.com/sudarshanhs Sud

I liked your point. Is it right to summarize this as below?:
“What matters is function. Creators focus on function. ie, artists focus on the blue, enterpreneurs focus on user benefit. Critics focus on how it changed the world, or how it created the mood at the right time the world is going through, etc.”

http://openid.anonymity.com/k01usc Him

I think that professionals (musicians, painters, entrepreneur) live their craft on a daily basis and thus aware to its deep analysis and don’t need to discuss it before/during/after an event. While the rest use the event itself to discuss their hobbies/interests.
FAKE GRIMLOCK

CRITIC ANALYSE THING TO PRETEND THEM HAVE UNDERSTANDING AND CONTROL.

CREATOR BUILD THING BECAUSE THEM UNDERSTAND NO ONE HAVE EITHER.
Pingback: 世上的光 » 说与做
Pingback: Mr.Sun Studio | Creativity Practitioner | 森先生工作室创意集聚地
Pingback: Aktuelles 18. Juni 2012
http://florianfeder.org Florian Feder

In my opinion, your best blog post ever.
Anonymous

‘interplay between the two modes of thought’ – I guess we can find it more in the ‘artist turned critic’ (happens rarely too) or ‘entrepreneur turned VC’ types . Atleast I have found, as an entrepreneur, its easier to talk to this subset in the investor community.
Anonymous

Great post Chris
Anonymous

Mr.Dixon do you think that as a VC now you play a role that is more geared towards hyping trends/companies etc based on what you have invested in and thereby have a vested interest in creating/perpetuating those hypes, while when you were working on your own startup you had a completely different perspective.
I wonder if you see in yourself the change in how you value shape/structure/meaning and cheap turpentine and if that order has now changed from when you were the entrepreneur to now the VC.
http://www.facebook.com/patrick.newbery Patrick Newbery

I’d suggest a deeper reading into Picasso’s quote; both critic and artists spend time with peers discussing the mechanics of their respective crafts: one involves the process of applying paint to canvas, the other vocabulary to abstract concepts.

What they both share is the goal for a critical level of influence.

VCs/analysts have a slightly different craft than entrepreneurs. It would be a mistake for either to focus too much on the craft of the other.

But it is interesting to note that unlike art, both VCs/Analysts are only successful if their critical level of influence has true economic value within the lifespan of their careers.

art can be of timeless value. business usually is not.
http://abdallahalhakim.tumblr.com/ Abdallah Al-Hakim

thoughtful and excellent post Chris. Life wouldn’t be exciting if we didn’t have different social circles that sometimes come together and create some magic
Antony Van Couvering

As Barnet Newman said, “Art criticism is to artists as ornithology is to birds.”
http://twitter.com/morsl mor.sl

this is true. i’d add the customer input to this as well – you’ll always get different inputs/ideas from customers about their problems, their desires. as an entrepreneur/artist, you have to filter through it all to find that thing which is true to you and which still evokes emotion/need in your customers. what you want to build, what investors think you should build and what customers need you to build may all be at tension with one another, and your job is to reconcile those (or not…steve blank always said in class that entrepreneurs (like artists) need to get their own visions out into the ether before they’ll truly consider a pivot or alternate idea).
http://twitter.com/RyanKuhel Ryan Kuhel

Great post. Just like certain frescos are meant to be appreciated with candlelight in a church (as opposed to under the laboratory light of the MET) start ups are meant to be appreciated from the trenches. The “turpentine” is the step-by-step iterations that contribute to the minimum viable product.

“The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses–in the gym, out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights -Muhammad Ali”
http://resumewritersworld.com/ resumewritersworld.com

I’m agree with that. It’s a good advice!
Pingback: 说与做 | IPOWall科技
Pingback: It’s great to be an entreprenuer – critics and practitioners | Raw thoughts from Alex Dong

Chris Dixon