Randall[c]Bennett.com

Summary

• I use Art and Product as keywords at opposing ends of a spectrum to describe a person’s motivation for creativity.
• Artists create art for themselves, Producers create products for other people.
• Artists ignore others, sometimes to their detriment.
• Product people listen to their customer, sometimes to their detriment.
• True product people are whores.
• True artists are starving artists.
• People who make societal and cultural impact now, before they die, tend to be in the middle of the spectrum.
• The creators’ Art / Product orientation determines the future opportunities around the work.
• Being a true artist or a true product person isn’t bad, but realizing current spectrum placement sets expectations for the future.

Right now I’m in a weird state of my career development. I’m not riding a rocket of momentum as I have in past ventures, but instead am finding myself evaluating opportunities and work with a more measured approach. I’ve got an idea of what I’d like to do for my next startup, specifically dealing with video production, but I don’t think the ecosystem is ready. That means I’m taking some time off to be an artist, rather than a producer. The art / product distinction is one which I’ve been thinking about at length as of late. Artist and Producer are two terms I’ve thought of in my head to describe a spectrum of motivation. Artists create because they have to— meaning they have some idea in their soul which they have to get out and show the world. Producers (product people), on the other hand, create something they think the world will enjoy. Both can have a similar result, i.e. people enjoying the end work, but the motivations are the difference and set the stage for deeper thoughts about the work’s future.

Art and Artists

Let’s look at artists for a second. When I say artists, I’m talking about a specific type of person, or group of people whose motivation for creativity is simple: Because they can. Artists, traditionally, create their vision single-handedly without regard for who will consume the work. They don’t ask for help, they don’t take direction from anyone else, and their only motive is to have the work exist in the real world. That leads to some typical “artist” results: they don’t often take critiques well, they don’t produce something that can be considered a wide “hit”, and yes, they tend to fiscally starve. Artistic integrity means the pure execution of an artistic message free of an external motive. Obviously artists take into account other inspirational works, but the actual artistic work, theoretically, will be free of any bias or motivation. Works with artistic integrity can have a big societal impact, but the lion’s share of “true artists” (think Brooklyn-esque modern artists) are relegated to obscurity. Also, don’t forget, art history’s favorite artists didn’t tend to be fully appreciated until society caught up to their vision. I used to walk through New York’s Union Square on Sunday to get to my church near 15th and 7th-ish. As I walked through the square, there would often be artists set up, hocking their wares. I’d talk to a lot of pretender artists, who’d be selling kitschy glass-wares, but occasionally I’d meet someone who just wanted to show off their work. For them, a $45 print purchase wasn’t validation as much as a means to continue exploring their artistic style. They could care less if people understood their point of view, they just needed some way to pay the rent. To put it succinctly: Artists create for themselves and nobody else. Their work is an execution of their internal message, mixed with time, medium, education and place.

Products and Producers

At the other side, producers create works for the consumer. A product should serve the customer’s need, and not the producer’s view of the world. A true producer isn’t attached to any idea, and should be willing to change every aspect of the final product to make the customer happy. True product people exist, in their worst form, in traditional corporate America. For me, the starkest personal example of product people comes in the form of TV news. There, the product people use research consultants to come up with conclusions about what people want. Ever wonder why there’s 10 minutes of weather in a newscast? That’s because since the 80s, people have mentioned weather in focus groups, which leads the TV stations to continue to put more weather in the newscast. Typically, news directors don’t have a true point of view, but instead chase this homogenized version of TV News which has permeated to most markets in the U.S. In addition, TV News is notorious for using its validation strategy, i.e. ratings, as the only metric for success. That’s why every February, May, and November you’ll see stories trotting out the scare tactics and trying to get you to watch. Their goal is exclusively to get the most viewers in any way possible, and that goal ends up hurting the product’s integrity and societal worth. The only way I can put it: True product people are essentially whores. Whores who are completely devoid of ethics, and so concerned with the validation (typically in terms of dollars) that they’ll do anything to get it.

Making an impact

Who should you be? I think the smartest people, and the most useful people for society at large, lie somewhere in the middle of the road. For instance, a person running a startup company should start with an artistic vision for a company which inspires employees, investors and others. They should be able to see what they think the end work looks like from the get go. However, unlike an artist, they should be willing to research every part of the product, and tear down any part which doesn’t serve their customer’s true needs. They should be building their work for a specific audience and person. Unlike a true product person (whore) they shouldn’t turn design over to the customer, nor should they assume the customer knows exactly what they want. They should, however, use usage patterns, research, a/b split testing and other ways of determining what works with a given customer, and scientifically test their product vision and assumptions. Falling too heavily to one side of the spectrum creates issues. An extreme product person might solely design a product based on customer feedback, which leads to design by committee issues. On the art side, an artist would create something exclusively for his/herself, and wouldn’t see the broader picture. Sure, a group of art aficionados (aka early-adopting TechCrunch readers) might find value in the art, and truly appreciate it, but the art as a consumer item won’t have true impact on a mass scale until consumers decide they need it / take the time to understand it. A company like Apple, for instance, has a huge societal and business impact because it treads toward the middle. Steve Jobs and company start out with an artistic vision for a product, but tend to observe behavior patterns in users by referring to data. For instance, Apple uses repair data from its genius bar to refine product designs. Facebook, another example of a societal and business winner, applies a similar tact by using analytics tools to understand how its users actually interact with its product. (I’d add that Apple tends to lie more on the Art side of the equation, while Facebook and Google lie more on the product side.)

My trajectory

It’s not a bad thing to be a pure artist, or a pure product person at some point in your career / life, but realize what you’re doing, and the underlying effects. Right now, for instance, I’m focusing more on “personal art projects” instead of creating products. I’m taking my time to learn how to code, and the output is for nobody but myself. That means I’m learning, and understanding things only for myself. I have friends who work in companies that I’d tend to term “product whores.” They’re making lots of short-term money, in the hopes of a more balanced art / product life-cycle in the future. My ultimate goal is to have that middle-ground. I want to change society / the world. However, by realizing I’m currently an artist, I can put my goals in perspective. Product people can do the same thing. People who are shooting for the moon now, however, need to strive for immediate balance. Otherwise, they’ll fall short of their ultimate goals.