If you're a programmer, and you follow the blogs, then you've probably drifted into one of the many articles discussing if you're an craftsperson or an Engineer. If you haven't, then here's a couple random links.
- http://stackoverflow.com/questions/235738/do-we-need-to-become-craftsmen-instead-of-engineers
- http://sachmet.livejournal.com/150950.html
- http://www.ericsink.com/Are_Programmers_Engineers.html
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXBf4KEP-dI
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlTiMUzLMgM
You can skip most of these. The last one is pretty good though.
You're neither of these things. You're not an engineer. You're not a craftsperson. If anything, all you are is an artist. You can bang on about technique and structure all you want, but still, at the end of the day, you're an artist. If you're good at it, you're a painter. If you're not so good at it, then you're a poet.
"But hey", you say. "Here's some reasons why I'm not an artist."
Yeah - And so have most artists the world over. For ever. You think the reason that most portraits are painted because the artist was interested in the subject matter. Wrong. From DaVinci to Freud, most paintings are commissioned. You think Toy Story 3 was created on a whim?
And the Sistine Chapel was just knocked out on a Wednesday afternoon? Seriously? You think that the planning you do is any less complicated than that done by any artist. You know what your top down approach to your "design" is like? It's like the work done by writers the world over when they're plotting their novel. In fact, I'm going to start calling the design phase of all work I do from now on "plotting". Tell me there's a difference.
No you don't. You do a tiny bit of math, and to be honest, it's not a huge component of what you do. Also, perspective. And Fibbernaci.
What about editing? What about the fact that DaVinci pretty much spent a grand portion of his life dragging the Mona Lisa round so he debug & refactor what he considered to be an unfinished product.
And so is writing, painting, dressmaking, guitar playing, film making, sculpture and interpretive dance. Your point is what exactly?
I have an idea. I start on that idea. I tinker about with the idea until it works how I want it to work. I show it to people. Based on their feedback, I make changes until I'm happy it fits in with what they want.
I have an idea. I start on that idea. I tinker about with the idea until it works how I want it to work. I show it to people. Based on their feedback, I make changes until I'm happy it fits in with what they want.
There are minor differences, but if you're a coder, then essentially you're an artist. And you need to start thinking like an artist. Your works are creative works, and they're 90% certain to fail. If you show your friends the stuff you wrote (not built, wrote), then they'll tell you it's great. Even when it's not great. Your success is informed by ability, but it's more informed by sheer luck. Location is more important than skill. If you're part of the Bloomsbury group, or the Italian Renaissance, then you're more likely to succeed.
You will not always make money from what you do.
You cannot train yourself to greatness. You need the learn your craft, but need a raw ability.
What you are doing is creative. Any skills updating, reading, researching or practising are secondary. You are a creator, and you can achieve more with raw ability than you can with decades of practice.
Stop saying you're an Engineer. Stop saying you're a craftsperson. You're an artist. A dancer, an actor, a writer, a painter. You're a busker, you're second fiddle in a minor orchestra. You're a bad slam poet at an out of town poetry competition. You're the guy that always pulls his guitar out at parties. You're an elderly relative that likes to paint watercolors.
You're an artist.
Now get out there. And start painting.