Of all the authors I’ve read, one has shaped how I view Art more than most others: Paul Graham. Paul Graham is a programmer, painter, venture-capitalist, and essayist. He primarily writes about technology and venture-capitalism, but he also writes about a wide range of other topics. He doesn’t talk about Art very much, though, at least not directly. One essay he wrote,
Hackers and Painters, was mostly about hackers, but it brought out a point that has stuck in my mind since the first I read it.
“When I finished grad school in computer science I went to art school to study painting. A lot of people seemed surprised that someone interested in computers would also be interested in painting. They seemed to think that hacking and painting were very different kinds of work– that hacking was cold, precise, and methodical, and that painting was the frenzied expression of some primal urge.
Both of these images are wrong. Hacking and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different types of people I’ve known, hackers and painters are among the most alike.”
-Paul Graham, Hackers and Painters
This opened up a lot of new possibilities for me. Painters and Hackers are what Graham calls “makers,” which are essentially people who make things. Painters, sculptors, architects, musicians, writers, carpenters, and others were all connected by their occupation of making things. Why can they be lumped together into one group, though? Everyone in that group has a different personality and way of working; other than the activity of making, what ties them together?
Graham answers this in another essay, How Art Can Be Good. This is his only essay that I can remember being about Art. The essay details how the idea of taste being subjective is simultaneously true and false. What ties the vast majority of makers is that they want to make things well. Taste being subjective functions perfectly well until you try making something. However, when you try making something, that begins to break down.
“I grew up believing that taste is just a matter of personal preference. Each person has things they like, but no one’s preferences are any better than anyone else’s. There is no such thing as good taste.
Like a lot of things I grew up believing, this turns out to be false, and I’m going to try to explain why.
One problem with saying there’s no such thing as good taste is that it also means there’s no such thing as good art. If there were good art, then people who liked it would have better taste than people who didn’t. So if you discard taste, you also have to discard the idea of art being good, and artists being good at making it.”
-Paul Graham, How Art Can Be Good
How can Art be good, though? If we are all different how can we be expected to have the same standards? We don’t. However, Graham points out that we all have something in common: we are all human.
I’m not going to summarize the entire essay for you though, you should just read it yourself. I had run into the problem stated at the beginning of the essay when I ran across Graham’s essay, and being told that it was possible to do art well was like lifting a boulder off of my chest. The only unfortunate side-effect of the whole thing is that now that I believe in good taste, I have to believe in bad taste.
How is that? Why can’t I believe in one and deny the other? It’s because one can’t exist without the other. For the sake of argument, let’s say people with good taste love the color yellow, and only the color yellow. Bad taste would be anything that isn’t yellow, then. The scale from good to bad would look like a color wheel going from yellow to violet.
If you take out the bad colors, what do you have left? Everyone is right and we’re right back where we started; nobody’s right because everybody’s right. The idea of rightness isn’t necessarily being correct, but being more correct than the people who are wrong, so if you remove the wrong answers you really just create more wrong answers.
-Paul
Written by Candee Basford
Leave a comment