Skip to main content

What If Success Was Easier?

success:

1. obsolete : outcome, result

2a : degree or measure of succeeding
b : favorable or desired outcome; also : the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence

3: one that succeeds


succeed:

2a : to turn out well
b : to attain a desired object or end

From the latin succedere: to come after, or up from below

Why do we not do a better job--or any job at all--defining success for ourselves? 

Why is the first definition of success one that Webster's qualifies as obsolete? An outcome or result. The first definition of succeed is literally "to come after another in rank or position, to follow after another in order". The second definition is to attain a desired end. Why don't we do more to delineate in any kind of terms what our desired end is? Why do we always default to "money" or "fame" or "status of some kind"? 

I admit that I am a perfectionist with [insanely] high goals for every artistic event I'm involved with. My props had to be indistinguishable from the real thing, if I couldn't get the real thing. My shows had to be sell-outs, or as close as physically possible without literally picking people up and bringing them to the theater. Classes and workshops needed to have the max number of students or I felt unsatisfied as either a teacher or a venue provider. More, always more. 

What if we defined success differently, though? I've written about failure before, how I don't truly believe in failure as long as you're trying and learning. But why can't the same be true of success? Why isn't there a spectrum rather than two distinct points? You did or you didn't. You succeeded or you failed. You made a gazillion dollars or you're a poor hack who just needs to quit trying. You're an investment banker/hotshot lawyer/neurosurgeon or you might as well be laying on your couch without a job. Dr. Strange thought his life was over because he couldn't use his hands any more after the car accident. 

The success story in the performing arts is school--move to one of three acceptable cities--get discovered--get signed to a project/show/team with an amazing amount of salary--pictures on magazines/appear on television/people want your autograph. 

Why? 

Why do we set ourselves up for the massive amount of disappointment that this definition of success inherently creates? 

Yes, money and fame are nice (I'm guessing.) But we can redefine the outcome we want and have success on our terms. 

I want a family and a house and live in a community I can afford without feeling like all work and no play. 

I want to produce theater that makes me--and hopefully an audience--laugh and cry and try to be a better person. 

I want to help other performing artists produce work that moves them and their communities, regardless of what size that community is or what that community looks like. It could be a town of 8,000 people, largely agricultural based, with a strong Irish background and cultural history of story-telling. It could be a neighborhood of 400 with young families of all nationalities trying to find some commonality between them and make their neighborhood a better, safer place to live. It could be a dancer who has moved six hours away from the only home she's ever known and just wants to move her body and find like-minded individuals. 

Connection is succeeding. That may be one person. Or 1000. 

More is better, sure. But it's not necessary. Define your success and then achieve it. 

Or not. And redefine and try again. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle?  art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com
Post a Comment
Read more

Doing Your Best Work With Others When You Feel Alone

I love any piece of writing that covers "creatives" and "artists." Even more, I love it when business magazines like Fast Company, Inc, and Harvard Business Review write articles about us arts folks. In one of the latest at Fast Co, author Jeff Goins tackles the idea of why you'll never do your best work alone . I want to riff on his three takeaways for the small theater and performing arts communities. Find a "Master" Goins uses the idea of Renaissance artists but this idea is also one used by Austin Kleon in his book Steal Like An Artist . However, this task may feel impossible for those of us living in smaller communities that may not have an established performing arts scene. Where are we to locate these masters? This may mean turning to online communities, diving into Youtube, or doing a lot of interlibrary loan exchanges to read what's been written by or about your chosen artists. Emulate your mentor's work. As most of my readers
2 comments
Read more

Theater in the Age of Netflix

I read a great article in the December issue of Fast Company titled " Retail in the Age of Amazon. " Long-time readers know of my penchant for following retail conversations and seeing how they are applicable to the theater world and this article was no different. (New readers: hello! do you think retail and theater overlap, too?) I sat down to write notes on all the topics and details from the article that I wanted to flesh out on for theaters. I thought it would be 4 or 5, since the article itself had 4 sections to it. Instead, I had TWENTY-TWO points to hit. To flesh out each of those points, even a paragraph a piece, seems a tad much for a blog post. Some of them I've written about before, like defining success on your terms and using heretical ideas . A lot of them are about how going back to basics and focusing on differentiation rather than competing at the same game can help retail businesses survive and thrive in the age of click-and-buy. This is
2 comments
Read more