Less Really Is More...
I got this out of an email newsletter:
The French author and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
This really resonates with me in ways I can't fully explain. Now, it's not like I design planes or anything - maybe that's not what he's talking about, I don't know, and when I have flown, I do appreciate that it's not, you know, just the bare minimum (I've talked to guys who have been in the air force or whatever and have flown as passengers in those big cargo aircraft - you want to talk about bare minimum for passenger flight...) - and I don't think that's exactly what this French guy is saying, either. But it's putting it all together - and then reducing it to what really matters, to the essential to fit the purpose.
I don't always write like that (seriously, look back, how many times have I said in 800 words what should have been said in 80?), I don't always think like that, either. (And you can just skip to the bottom to reach my conclusion of you want the 80ish word version) But here's what struck me about the idea:
Put in EVERYTHING you can imagine - then start taking away. It's not "start functional, then strip away to almost nothing." But rather "start impractically complicated, then simplify". Start confusingly obtuse, then streamline. Whatever. If it's a plane, give it 30 wings - yeah, you don't need 'em, but you might hit on something as you're reducing that you wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't been completely impractical. Ok, yeah, now it's obvious that I don't design planes.
But I do write. How about a story. Let it go in any direction you want - let it wander - introduce a cast of thousands, who cares? Change the laws of physics. Rewrite history. Then begin to edit - these three characters all achieve the same function, so combine them. Decide what's necessary for the plot, keep it - jettison most of the rest.
I'm thinking this really applies to anything creative that's...assembled or designed or something. I mean, it's literally true of sculptors, but painters? Aren't they, by definition, constantly ADDING to the work? And, of course, there's lots it would never apply to - child rearing (heh)...
I do write sermons - and this is probably where I need this lesson the most. I'm usually trying to "get to the end" - you know - I have this outline, I know the points I want to make, I write, I revise as I go, I conclude. But...rarely do I edit out much. Yeah, it happens, but not as often as it probably should - and often as not I'll use what I cut out some other time...
I guess it just really struck me. I started writing this a couple months ago(!!) and I just saw it as a draft in my queue and re-read it. Recently, I have begun doing just this. I wrote no less than three full sermons for this past week - first one going off in a radically different direction. Started over. Second one didn't hit the right points, but closer. Started over. Finally felt I hit it. Too long. Cut it down. I still went kinda long (and, I can't seem to stop myself from telling the spontaneous stories that come to mind when I'm in the middle of the sermon...) but it was probably more concise than it would have been a few months ago.
Conclusion (for the impatient and pressed for time...heh): And this is already too long - here's the bottom line:
I think the difference between the creative person and the successful creative person*** is the willingness to put more effort into something and wisdom to know what to cut. Every word you write, line you draw, frame you shoot, whatever isn't gold. Maybe even most of it isn't.
***So...how do you define a successful creative person? Dunno for you. I'd say one whose creativity is shared and appreciated by others. But you say what you want...I don't mind...
The French author and aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupéry once said, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
This really resonates with me in ways I can't fully explain. Now, it's not like I design planes or anything - maybe that's not what he's talking about, I don't know, and when I have flown, I do appreciate that it's not, you know, just the bare minimum (I've talked to guys who have been in the air force or whatever and have flown as passengers in those big cargo aircraft - you want to talk about bare minimum for passenger flight...) - and I don't think that's exactly what this French guy is saying, either. But it's putting it all together - and then reducing it to what really matters, to the essential to fit the purpose.
I don't always write like that (seriously, look back, how many times have I said in 800 words what should have been said in 80?), I don't always think like that, either. (And you can just skip to the bottom to reach my conclusion of you want the 80ish word version) But here's what struck me about the idea:
Put in EVERYTHING you can imagine - then start taking away. It's not "start functional, then strip away to almost nothing." But rather "start impractically complicated, then simplify". Start confusingly obtuse, then streamline. Whatever. If it's a plane, give it 30 wings - yeah, you don't need 'em, but you might hit on something as you're reducing that you wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't been completely impractical. Ok, yeah, now it's obvious that I don't design planes.
But I do write. How about a story. Let it go in any direction you want - let it wander - introduce a cast of thousands, who cares? Change the laws of physics. Rewrite history. Then begin to edit - these three characters all achieve the same function, so combine them. Decide what's necessary for the plot, keep it - jettison most of the rest.
I'm thinking this really applies to anything creative that's...assembled or designed or something. I mean, it's literally true of sculptors, but painters? Aren't they, by definition, constantly ADDING to the work? And, of course, there's lots it would never apply to - child rearing (heh)...
I do write sermons - and this is probably where I need this lesson the most. I'm usually trying to "get to the end" - you know - I have this outline, I know the points I want to make, I write, I revise as I go, I conclude. But...rarely do I edit out much. Yeah, it happens, but not as often as it probably should - and often as not I'll use what I cut out some other time...
I guess it just really struck me. I started writing this a couple months ago(!!) and I just saw it as a draft in my queue and re-read it. Recently, I have begun doing just this. I wrote no less than three full sermons for this past week - first one going off in a radically different direction. Started over. Second one didn't hit the right points, but closer. Started over. Finally felt I hit it. Too long. Cut it down. I still went kinda long (and, I can't seem to stop myself from telling the spontaneous stories that come to mind when I'm in the middle of the sermon...) but it was probably more concise than it would have been a few months ago.
Conclusion (for the impatient and pressed for time...heh): And this is already too long - here's the bottom line:
I think the difference between the creative person and the successful creative person*** is the willingness to put more effort into something and wisdom to know what to cut. Every word you write, line you draw, frame you shoot, whatever isn't gold. Maybe even most of it isn't.
***So...how do you define a successful creative person? Dunno for you. I'd say one whose creativity is shared and appreciated by others. But you say what you want...I don't mind...
Comments
It takes a lot of strength to understand that a shorter sermon might be a better sermon.