I hear often, I learn the most from my failures. I wonder if thats true. I did learn a lot on this painting, maybe I learned more than I have learned on successful paintings if we just count number of things learned. But, the quality of the lessons I learn on a failed painting are outweighed by the quality of the lessons learned by successful paintings. I say that because, sure – theres no right way to make art. But there is what I meant to do. A skilled artists isnt successful because she creates correct art. She is successful because she creates what she intended.
If you set out to make art without intention, then that is your intention. If you set out to make art, without intention, then youre a charlatan.
Lets call What-I-Intend-to-Do, i. There are a finite number of ways to achieve i, lets call that set of things A. And there are an infinite number of ways to fail at achieving i. Lets call that set F.
I learn n things by failing to achieve i. In that case, I have learned to no longer try n of the infinite F. The result does not reduce the size of F.
But, if I achieve i, then I have found n of the finite A. Because A is finite, finding an n of A is an amazing feeling, and is what results is true progress. From then on, I can use those n of the finite A to achieve i. Finding an n of the Finite A is the true goal of learning, because the more n I learn, the more my understanding grows of the Finite A. The more my understanding of the finite A increases, the better my odds of achieving i.
While failures do nothing to reduce the size of the Infinite F, they are the only way to find an n of the Finite A. And whenever I sit down to create art, the odds of achieving i go up as I reduce the unknown n of the Finite A.
So, achieving i is inversely proportional to the known n of Finite A.
And thats why I hate philosophy, and thats why I hate math. It all boils down to some obscenely obtuse bullshit that just makes me feel dumb.
What Im really trying to say, is this painting sucks and I gave up on it.
Leave a Reply