Join us for free at the Mastery Den Telegram for daily content ideas so you never run out of ideas.
—
People think of Pablo Picasso as a highly original genius.
And he was.
But was he any more ‘special’ than most of us?
I’d argue he wasn’t (in the way many think he was), but we can learn so much from him.
I’ve been listening to the Originals audiobook by Adam Grant about how non-conformists make an impact.
It’s terrific.
In it, Grant discusses what makes for highly original, influential people.
When we look at the work of Picasso, Mozart and Shakespeare, we are selective. We overlook the flops and prize their best work.
We see a handful of brilliant works among their massive bodies of work. But we ignore the less good stuff.
There’s no doubt these guys were skilled and produced magnificent work.
They also had plenty of natural talent.
But they were not superhuman. They produced a lot of trash.
Most of all, they were prolific.
Grant argues that in producing a lot of work, they gathered the skill, awareness and feedback needed to increase the likelihood they would make quality, original work.
This is why so many seemingly incredible artists, inventors, writers and creators of our time produced a lot.
They weren’t born geniuses. They allowed it to develop and thrive by producing more than most.
The same for me. I’ve written over a thousand articles, for example. Many of them were crap. A few were great and went viral.
By writing and publishing a lot, I just increased my chances of success. I just had to be willing to see a lot of posts flop. And that never ends, nor should it.
There is no better teacher than grinding in the trenches.
I gathered my best data by producing and shipping.
Think about those creators you admire. You will likely see a prolific track record of material that got little attention.
Edison filed over 1000 patents in his time, most of which failed to achieve commercial success. But we still know of him as one of the world’s greatest inventors.
Many talk about how we should focus on quality over quantity. But this isn’t quite right.
As Grant says, a larger quantity of work amplifies the likelihood of high-quality results.
You want to create great work, yes.
Just don’t put so much pressure on yourself to hit slam dunks with everything you share.
Be willing to produce some crap and make mistakes. It will release a lot of pressure.
Be prolific and commit to as much volume as you can muster.
You’re almost guaranteed success this way, especially if you stay aware of what is and isn’t working, and...
...You don’t quit.
. . .
Thanks for reading.
My course on writing for growth is closing soon. Get it here while it’s available:
You receive instant free access to my $290 course on learning how I improved my online writing to attract a readership of over 180,000: Online Writing Alchemy (and community access).
You also get weekly Thursday exclusive video content for members to help get you an unfair advantage in growing your brand fast and being a powerful writer.
You also get access to all the hundreds of locked posts to accelerate your brand.
Hit the subscribe button below to join.
Here is my latest book, ‘Creatively Jacked: 43 badass motivation ideas for ambitious creators, today.
You’ll also love my recent book: ‘The Art of Self Respect: Twenty-five subtle habits for cultivating deep self-respect and attracting the respect of others‘ — get your copy today.
this is really helpful advice. sometimes I hesitate about how much of my writing I publish online, because not all of it is "Great." But often times the pieces I spend the least amount of time on get more traction and likes than the essays that I spend hours editing and annotating. I figure that if I put it all out there, the ones that resonate with people the most will rise to the top. As long as I'm not too precious about the ones that don't get as much attention.
Creativity is unfamiliar combination of familiar ideas.
I don't think there's anything like originality. Everything is built on the shoulders of the giants beforehand.