Most features of creative media don't seem to differentiate one versus another. For example most creative media give you a significant buzz (that is, they are fun). True, some are more fun than others. E.g. stamp collecting I would wager is not lighting up much of the elation centers of the brain. Learning Klingon maybe down on the list as well. Just above learning Klingon I would rank my first profession: a lab researcher in a molecular biology lab. This was creative work albiet slow. It seemed that one made a creative decision about once per year. But for the most part, they are a wash here.
All creative endeavors have some form of environmental toll as well. I suppose ones that generate a lot of byproduct would lose in this attribute. Like nickel smelting-4-fun.
What about the value of the end product to society? Now here is a point of differentiation. Clearly some creative exploits are not worth a hill of beans save for the transient PET pattern they create in the beholder for about 5 seconds. I would put most modern art in this category. What about good art? Or musical performance? Well the benefits are subtle, and I would argue small.
What about its potential to make you money? This is a good point of differentiation because it indicates how much the person is completely wasting his time. Measured by this standard, most creative exercizes are a fool's errand. But some media outperform others clearly. I suspect that here again, art fares poorly relative to more technological-related exploits.
Where the hell are you going with this Dave? I hear you ask. Well my thesis is that the finest creative medium ever is [envelope please]. Computer programming!
Eh? A hush fell over the Readership like a choking cloud of chlorine gas. Good thing nobody would ever read this. Well here is why software development is such a fabulous exploit for the few who are lucky/squashy enough to do it.
- High buzz per unit time invested. Imagine scientific advancement sped up by a 1000 fold. That's what computer programming feels like to me. It is pretty easy to get yourself humming on a project in which you are tinkering with code and running a new experiment every half minute or so. No pesky gels or radioactive phosphorus or carcasses either.
- High reward to society [I think]. This is hard to figure. Well what is the internet worth? Now throw in the value of non-internet devices. Costly. And all this wealth was created in just the last few decades. I bet well over half of the value of the internet was programmed in just the last few years. Yes I hear your point that the actual content on the internet gets some credit. If this post is at all representative, then I think it's clear that content is overrated.
- High potential for financial reward. Yes the days of everybody-who-knows-html-gets-rich are over. But you stack the median joe programmer against the median seth actor and i think in the former case he has a ranch house and a kid and 2 cars versus the latter is sleeping on his friend's couch, still chasing a forlorn dream.
So in sum, I retract all above statements.
Dave
