The expectation that artists be "good people" always baffles me. Anyone who becomes a great artist has: 1)High levels of narcissism required to think the world needs to hear "your vision. 2) High levels of sociopathy to thrive in a snake pit like the art world or Hollywood. It's even stranger than if someone expected CEOs to be good people (which we don't).
Keanu Reeves, Dolly Parton, Weird Al Yankovic, Bryan Cranston… By all accounts I ever found, they’ve always been described as genuinely nice human beings.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe Keanu Reaves as a "great artist". Quite the opposite in fact. Most charitably, he's a decent character actor who does really well in certain roles that suit him well, but outside of those, he is not a great actor. He also allegedly plays bass in a band decently well, though again is no world-class master of the instrument.
But yeah, he's generally acknowledged as a really nice guy, and also easy to work with.
Weird Al Yankovic, too, is not generally considered a "great artist". A funny musician who made a career making silly parody songs a few decades ago, sure, but that's not what I'd call a "great artist". Again, not to denigrate his work; it was pretty funny stuff as I recall, but nothing super-amazing.
By contrast, people who are generally considered the very top of their profession frequently have serious personality problems. Kevin Spacey was considered one of the best actors in Hollywood, and look what happened to him. Tom Cruise is generally considered one of the most talented actors of all time, and while he's amazing on-screen, he's a certifiable crackpot and mouthpiece for a dangerous cult. Klaus Kinski was also an extremely talented actor, and also extremely mentally ill and unstable.
I skipped Dolly because I honestly don't know enough about country music to know if she's a "great artist" or merely "famous over a long time". Same for the other guy: I'm just not familiar. But I called out your choice of Keanu because it's really well-known that he is not a great actor, and he probably agrees. But it's great that he made a good career for himself anyway; as I said, he does well in certain roles that fit him well. I don't consider myself the top 1% in my profession either.
Of course, I guess this could easily veer off into a discussion about what qualifies as "great artist". Does a top-selling musician/singer who has limited range or uses autotune count, or does someone with amazing technical ability but little commercial success not count? Does a "wooden" actor qualify as a "greater artist" if they've grossed higher than Daniel Day Lewis?
They can, but they're competing with assholes, you can figure out the odds.
Like there's an Olympics where everyone's on drugs but a few good folks decide to compete clean.
Want to win fair? Sure, same here. Now here come the whispers, you can just ignore them, sure, but now your girlfriend's pregnant and your bank account is looking a little thin. Good luck.
Seems like quite some assumptions are being made there. Can't work be done for intrinsic reasons? Can't artists (creators more generally) be insular or even reclusive?
I can't agree with that. While unwavering determination is definitely necessary to overcome lack of success, there are other ways to achieve that.
And as was once put to me, the reason that some artists are not appreciated until after their death isn't just a matter of not meeting your heroes, but because they understood something about the present moment that the public was not yet prepared to reflect upon. That we appreciate them in retrospect because they tell us something we are not yet ready to hear. That requires a degree of empathy for humanity that is not well represented in a strictly narcissistic diagnosis.
After a decade, "founder of X that I no longer work at" is considered a lame answer. People want to know what you are doing now, not your highest claim to status of your entire life.
I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of Stanford students are anxious or depressed. Isn't everybody, especially young kids who have spent the last decade going through the meat grinder of prepping for elite college admissions?
Many emotional problems that are highly dysfunctional can be missed or masked by raw intelligence until a certain higher level of intellectual competition or pressure is present.
Having participated in frequent academic competitions in high school in a top-5-biggest metropolitan area in the US, there was one guy in my era who pretty much won city-wide awards in any subject he touched all the time. So bright. He got into an elite college and spiraled out and dropped out for what, in hindsight I'd armchair-diagnose, were a mix of ADHD/Autistic/anxiety-oriented tendencies that collided with online gaming that hadn't caused failures in earlier environments for him.
Fascinating. I wonder what drives the male aggression towards unicyclists. Is it a response to perceived competition (another male doing something attention-getting: must put them down to maintain my place in the male hierarchy)? Is it enforcing male norms of being "serious", conformist, etc?
Environmentalists are just against progress. A few desert species going extinct is not a big deal. It's an arid wasteland. When we eventually terraform it (with desalinated water from solar / fusion) those species are going to die out anyway.
Most people earn money over time. Putting these savings 100% into the stock market as you earn them is pretty reasonable. It’s only a sudden cash windfall that presents problems.
The fix for that is to put money in 1, 2, and 3 year treasuries, and invest that money into equities as the treasuries mature.
Those techniques rarely worked in the past as the broad stock market retreat usually affects stocks across the board. The best diversification is into uncorrelated asset classes. But there is some art in determining what's likely to remain uncorrelated. Bonds and gold are usually decent guesses.
They certainly solve the stated problem of concentration in a few tech companies. But I agree, non-tech companies are overvalued.
Bonds are terrifying, they’re a bet against inflation and in favor of the US dollar.
MLPs and oil companies are a nice place to stash money because they aren’t correlated with tech. MLPs flow about 7% tax free yield which isn’t bad.
Bitcoin and Gold are good hedges against inflation.
reply