Recently, on Triple J’s Hack programme, there was a segment on the transformation in photography from film-based to digital-based.
First they interviewed the die-hard devotees of film, then a professional photographer who’d happily made the transition to digital about six years ago. He had this to say [note: self-transcribed; all errors mine own] about using film instead of digital:
There is an element of luck about it, that people do enjoy that certain amount of uncertainty…there’s two kinds of photographers; there’s photographers who are focussed on the final result, and there’s photographers who actually like the process of being a photographer…being a photographer for them, I think, it’s about the gear. There’s nothing wrong with that, you know, they like the mechanics of winding the film on, they like getting in the darkroom, they tend to be process-driven rather than results-driven.
He divides photographers into results-driven and process-driven. Writers can be divided the same way. For some, arguably most professional/successful/profligate writers, it’s about the love of the result. They develop out their characters and plot and they write the scenes and get the book done quickly, with lots of planning and minimal revision.
Then there’s those writers who love falling into the process, letting the story develop as they go along, being carried along. Can be lots of false starts and deadends but also can be some wonderful a-ha moment. For this sort of writer, if they want to get a result in the end, there’s lot of drafts and revisions over the process.
Of course, for most long-term writers (and I’m sure for photographers), it’s enjoying a mix of the process and the result that’s important and which draws them back to the keyboard time and time again.
I’m obviously process-driven, as anyone who has followed this blog can tell, but if I didn’t want a damn decent result at the end of all this drafting, I wouldn’t keep going; I certainly wouldn’t have gone ahead with a second draft once the ‘process’ was over and the ‘result’ (the first draft) was in. Most writers like both. As the photographer says, there’s nothing wrong with where their emphasis lies (a longer process does not a better result make).
Okay, with me so far? There’s a third type of writer. For them, it really is just about the “gear” – the gloss of ‘being a writer’ (oh yes, it’s glamorous, all right).
They’d like to have written: they want the result (ie money and fame, not really a book) without going through the process at all. This can be a great motivator, of course, if somewhat unrealistic, but it does not necessarily translate into discipline. Props do not equal a process, wishing for it does not produce a result.
If you recognise elements of yourself in this, I’m not telling you to give it up. I am suggesting that your initial motivation for money and fame and glamour may get you started, but you’re going to need the motivation of absolutely loving what you do to keep going with it. It’s a great career, but all great careers are also hard work.
I think there’s a bit of a divide with knitters too: those who knit because they like knitting, and don’t much care if it doesn’t turn out perfectly (people come in all sizes, so it’s bound to fit *someone* out there); and those who knit in order to get a final product they’ve visualised right from the start.
And as you say, there’s those who spend their time preparing, and reading gear reviews, and talking instead of doing. There’s only so much of that you can do before you have to actually put in the sweat and tears to make something real.
I think there’s parallels with every creative art…the process, the result…and the talking about the process and the result.
I’m process-driven with knitting, too, but results-driven with cooking, which maybe is why I don’t enjoy it so much.