ive had these weird thoughts about the concept of how things people make get reacted to and stuff for a long time now
when people have ideas in their heads, they can make it out relatively easy enough, but almost all of the difficulty lies in making it good. Revising ideas, tweaking them to make it flow better, make more sense, and whatever else. Once people think what they’ve made is good enough, they can publish it and anyone that sees it and is interested can take a look.
In theory, if the creator put hard work into it, it will be loved proportionately to how much effort was put in it. Otherwise, if it was made without passion or creative drive, it will end up bad and people won’t like it. Simple.
But there’s always cases where it just doesn’t happen. People make things and try to make them as good as they possibly can, and it will still end up “bad.” I don’t mean cases where AAA studios make something for money, but instances where someone or a group genuinely gives it a shot.
How does it feel for those people? Knowing that they revised it, looked over it again, and made consideration upon consideration just to still miss something entirely? Maybe some visual choice they were proud of is apparently deemed unfitting or wrong in some way, shape, or form by the audience, or some story beat they revised over and over is seen as dull.
Sure, very often the audience can hate something irrationally, or reactions can be mixed. But what about the cases when they deeply, truly aren’t? What happens when receptions are unanimous?
Whenever something like this happens to a creator, the advice or comfort they always get is usually along the lines of “It’s okay, nobody’s perfect, you were good enough.” However, is this really even true at this point?
There’s few of them, but there exists creations that people have argued are “perfect”. Undertale, Breaking Bad, or something like Romeo and Juliet all go down as something flawless. They reach a point where if the average fan saw someone saying they disliked it, the typical/expected/natural reaction wouldn’t be ignoring them, but asking “Why?” like it’s an opinion that has managed to be wrong.
I’m not writing this out of envy, good for those guys, but the point is that there is a threshold that can somehow be crossed. Apparently, a work can be perfect and eternally renowned for its genius and millions of other reasons.
If people can really try just to fail, then that begs the question of “what makes a creation good?”
However, if people can really try just to create what is supposedly an impossible perfect craft, then that begs the infinitely more dreadful question of “what makes a creation perfect?”
How many little details do you need to add to something so that “stupid” becomes “smart” becomes “genius”? How many little nuances or connections should one thing have before “isolated” becomes “interesting” becomes “one of the most creative things I’ve ever seen”?
How much of an audience can you attract so that “niche” becomes “popular” becomes “worldwide phenomenon”?
Is that unrealistic? Yes. Has it happened before? Multiple times.
And, somehow, all of this can be done just to realize that you missed out on something, and the audience deems what you made as something unremarkable en masse.
This is why art terrifies me.
jbbartram-illu
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
janainaart
turnnoffyourmind
izzy806
origamiaround
dailybridgerton
germansingergirl
