…and how do you know?
I frequently promote ideas Seth Godin posits on his blog and show how they connect with the arts.
I do it so frequently, you may be astonished to learn this ain’t one of those times.
And really, someone probably isn’t worth reading if your thought processes always align.
Last month he made a post essentially calling people out for not being aware of the leading voices in their area of endeavor.
He ends the post with:
The line between an amateur and professional keeps blurring, but for me, the posture of understanding both the pioneers and the state of the art is essential. An economist doesn’t have to agree with Keynes, but she better know who he is.
If you don’t know who the must-reads in your field are, find out before your customers and competitors do.
Too much doing, not enough knowing.
While I am secure in the knowledge that I am undoubtedly one of the must-reads in my field and need only listen to the voices in my head if I wish to be enlightened, even I have to ask who the heck has the time to identify and follow all the must-reads in their field.
Twenty years ago, it was possible but now there are so many insightful minds expressing themselves I have a hard enough time keeping abreast of everyone I follow. I often discover to my chagrin that the people I thought I had included in my Twitter and news feeds aren’t in there.
I would agree with the general concept that arts professionals could do a better job staying abreast of new ideas and trends that will help them work smarter over shorter hours. I will also concede that my ability to read a lot of material and distill it into blog posts is partially attributable to the fact I, (by way of metaphor), have a small lawn to mow and I don’t devote a lot of time weeding my flowerbeds.
I don’t know how the rest of you manage.
There are two main problems with institutionalizing the concept of must-reads.
One that is significant for the arts is the attitude of “how could you not know about X?” which has, fairly or unfairly, contributed to the image of the arts as elitist. (Do such people exist in great numbers? While I have often been intimidated by the idea of their disapproval, I have rarely encountered them outside of the “no clapping between movements” crowd.)
The second problem is that when you create a list of must-reads, you inevitably omit a worthy or include an unworthy, the focus turns to the validity of the list and it ceases to be useful as a guide.
For most people, the must-reads are going to be those who direct you to other interesting thought leaders. While I am eschewing list making, I think everyone can agree that my blog You’ve Cott Mail fits this description of a must-read and is a good place to start seeking people to follow.
Wow, thank you so much, Joe! I am (as you know) a huge fan of your blog and so this means a lot coming from you. Best, Thomas
Yeah, well I figure your work is incontrovertible. There is always at least one article of interest in your daily mailings. People might decide to argue you don’t case a wide enough net, but as I note no one person can possibly keep on top of everything.
It is well deserved, @Thomas Cott
I myself consider You’ve Cott Mail as a must read. Its biggest benefit to me has been making me aware of the must reads in my sphere, and in some cases, outside my sphere. Thanks for doing what you do.
I have to agree that this was one of my least favorite Seth Godin posts, and your response to it sums up pretty much of how I was feeling. Seth usually makes such a strong case for tribes and for self curating and for more democratic sources of value, and honestly that post seemed a bit out of place.
I have an uneasy relationship with most forms of gatekeeping in my field as an artist, but even when my own blog found its way on the radar of folks in the ceramics world I just couldn’t accept that my blog was among the top two for a few years (currently #7 🙂 ). I am honored that anyone would see value in my work but I’m very uncomfortable being ranked, and especially being ranked above other authors I admire. The idea of some objective ‘must read’ scale just seems ludicrous.
I think the idea of ‘must reads’ is a mistake for the reasons you spell out, but especially because the value of information depends on the priority of the question/problem being addressed. And when you get down to the fine grains of personal interest the universality of broader questions and problems often lose out. Even within broadly recognized fields there are tribes distinct from one another, and within those tribes groups who stand for or against certain ways of doing things. And within these groups there will be communities that take sides, who focus on their own insight, and among them individuals who bring their own experience and uniqueness to the table…… Partisanship is a fracturing force as much as its a unifying one.
I’m just suggesting that the more ‘must read’ something is generally the less universal it is, and the value of information often only grows with its specificity…. Or so it seems.
The flip side is that questions and answers in one field sometimes provide insight into other fields, and that anyone thinking about art can have something to say to what an individual in another creative practice is doing. And this doesn’t necessarily mean that there are ‘universal’ concerns. The difference is that specific things can be related by tangents and through specific resemblances. The problem with the idea of ‘must reads’ is that it suggests some essential quality that holds objectively. If you instead imagine common interests you can see both how unnecessary a shared essence is but also how fascinating our diversity is, how contingently it holds our attention, and how much we can learn from the variety of how it plays out. Its why, as a potter, I am always curious what you have to say and what issues you are thinking about.
Keep up the good work!