# Artistry versus Technical Ability



## bdcharles (Mar 1, 2018)

How do you marry these two approaches up? This is not so much a planning versus pantsing point but rather the dfferent methods you use to create, and your thoughts on each generally. For me, my day job is very technical, planning-oriented and precise, and many's the time I have tried to bring that approach to my writing in a fit of corporate loyalty (can you tell bonus season is upon us?!). But I think there is a real place for the artistry of it, where the source material comes from some intuitive space rather than a formula. But then, sometimes the formula approach _can _bring something useful to the table; you know, have an inciting incident, use device X, make your protagonist want something, put things in the way to it, and so on. But then how to smooth the joins with creativity, so no-one can see this, and to get the impact right? To me it feels like building the architecture and making sure it holds together and provides the understructure so some sort of storylike journey can take place, and alongside that, imagining something, letting what ideas come, come, and maybe backengineering it all so there's a place for that arresting image or whatever. 

It's like writing two identical things at the same time differently. Yeah, that's what it's like


----------



## Annoying kid (Mar 1, 2018)

[video=youtube;BmK6ETRzYyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmK6ETRzYyI[/video]

I don't find the two to be in conflict in the sense that my artistry demands I get the precise combination of words and imagery I'm happy with. And so that fuels the desire to employ technique and the more technique I learn the greater the artistic ambition in terms of the complexity of the shot. Technique allows me to portray anything I can imagine in the way I imagine it given enough time, but on the other hand paying too much attention to formula makes it seem too written and too designed. For instance that's why I'm not a fan of having a repeating storytelling formula or having set roles for characters. For instance a character gets as much time on stage as they need and no more. It should not be obvious that a character is only doing something or receiving special treatment just because of their designation by the writer. For instance in Inheritance by Paolini, Arya uses the Dauthdaert weapon for no reason other than she's a named character and the most prominent elf in terms of pagetime. There are many more experienced elves who could have and logically would have used it but they weren't "important" characters to the fans and to the formula, so not allowed.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 1, 2018)

Art is the result of the relentless pursuit of perfecting a craft.

All arts are based on skills, crafts which can be honed. And all crafts, be it writing, cooking, woodworking, acting, sport, or any other, can, when sufficiently developed, transcend the *required* skill-set and become art.


----------



## ppsage (Mar 1, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Art is the result of the relentless pursuit of perfecting a craft.
> 
> All arts are based on skills, crafts which can be honed. And all crafts, be it writing, cooking, woodworking, acting, sport, or any other, can, when sufficiently developed, transcend the *required* skill-set and become art.


Agree in general but would just like to note that, while _*some*_ personal skill-set is required, a sufficient one can often be a small sub-set of the entirety of thus-far-discovered skills, and that, to some extent, the evolution of a uniquely personal skill-set is often the part of artistry.


----------



## moderan (Mar 1, 2018)

ppsage said:


> Agree in general but would just like to note that, while _*some*_ personal skill-set is required, a sufficient one can often be a small sub-set of the entirety of thus-far-discovered skills, and that, to some extent, the evolution of a uniquely personal skill-set is often the part of artistry.


And that is an art in and of itself.
Art is also generally thought to be the product of inspiration and can be (generally is) enhanced by a (certain) degree of technical skill. This is why people practice the proverbial ten thousand hours to attain those fleeting moments of transcendence.
Some people learn their craft well enough to make it look easy. Those people also probably have the distinct advantage of possessing the ineffable quality referred to as 'talent' or 'aptitude'.


----------



## Jeko (Mar 1, 2018)

I wouldn't delineate between these so cleanly. Your 'artistry' is an expression - to yourself, and to other people (the two images usually being very different) - that manifests itself through the technical procedures you go through in order to put thoughts to paper or screen.

Perhaps it would be better to replace 'artistry' here with 'imagination'? But still, these are essentially two legs that you must use, with balance, in order to run the race of writing your narrative. Each step of your imagination needs to be followed up with some kind of discipline that stops it from floating away from the core of your work, and each step of discipline needs to be followed by your imagination in order to continue the flow of your work, to not have the story stagnate on perfecting one detail at the expense of losing track of everything else. Of course, everyone has their own individual flow, but it inevitably involves these two legs, and their pursuit of the characters they want to talk about and the ideas they want to weave between the lines of the story.


----------



## Xenization (Mar 2, 2018)

They are the same thing. Without the one you can never use the other with any skill.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 2, 2018)

There are many examples of writing in which there is abundant skill, but no trace of artistry. Formulaic romance novels, pornographic novels (as opposed to erotica), much of the pulp science fiction of the 20's, 30's, and 40's, westerns, detective novels, the list can go on and on. I'd put the current flow of James Patterson novels on that list, as well as the work of PD James, Dan Brown, and others. Relatively skilled crafts people -- at least to the degree that they are readable -- but no hint of art.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Mar 2, 2018)

This is something that absolutely must be balanced; I've seen many instances where creative license was taken (and widely accepted) over the traditional rules of writing. I think it depends on the medium more than anything else, because even dealing with abstract forms of art, there are baselines ("rules") that people can cling to for guidance or direction.

Taking the time to perfect the craft is not the same as developing a voice or style. These components of writing are independent of one another.

I personally like a strong foundation under the context of my writing. I feel like people are more receptive to works that are written in an easily understood format, with words that aren't verbose or unnecessarily "mouthy."

Artistically speaking, everyone has something they like to see, so I don't take anything away from human dictionaries or people who take creative license to heart - especially if it makes money.


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Mar 3, 2018)

Here's my view on it: form is needed. Writing is a craft after all. Formula's on the other hand, are not. 

Think of writing a bit like a painting. You must learn different technical skills, but the image you ultimately end up with will also have an unconscious, non-critical element of it, which makes it original.

Take characters for example. We have archetypes at our disposal we can use for dramatic functions, but it's up to you how those archetypes will interract. Their personalities will, in part, come from your unconscious, and not always a conscious descision-making process.

One way to combine the two is: plan the plot and character functions critically, write down the story non-critically.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 3, 2018)

"Artistry versus Technical Ability"

I don't understand why there would be a *vs* between them.  In writing you need both.  Artistry is your natural skill for writing, and technical ability is your developed skillset.
I see lots of people who think that writing is something that can be done either because of natural ability, or sheer intelligence.
Truth is, you need the triad: Artistry, Technical Ability, and Maniacal Perseverance.
Even if you are born with a natural predisposition for writing (talent), you still have to work your ass off to develop it to the point that it is a marketable commodity (technical ability.)  But to do that you have have a diehard mindset (maniacal perseverance) of you'll never finish that first book.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 4, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> have an inciting incident, use device X, make your protagonist want something, put things in the way to it, and so on.
> 
> It's like writing two identical things at the same time differently. Yeah, that's what it's like



Inspiration leads to a book you like. If you are trying to write a book that others might like or that might sell well, even if you don't like it, you need advice, which I think you are calling technique.

Is that what you mean? Could your technique lead to something you don't particularly like for your own reading?

It usually takes inspiration for me to realize I should use a technique, then inspiration to use it well. So they are mixed up for me. Then, if I like what I wrote, I don't care whether it was more technique or inspiration.

I question the value of the "inciting incident" advice, for example. But, for selling books, I guess it makes sense to have one at the start of the book.


----------



## QuirkyasCrow (Mar 4, 2018)

I keep coming back to this because I had to think hard about the question/discussion that was being started. 

I believe that it really is two stages - the technical (formula) is simply the plot, story line, the whole. Most books that don't have a plot/problem to be solved/etc. don't become the mainstream best sellers. Memoirs and such are a niche and not a mass market. 

The artistry comes in with the editing, how you want to call it, skill, inspiration etc. That is the place where you end up painting with words, put a bit of your soul into it so the story comes alive for the reader. 

That being said there are times I can sit down and just write and there isn't much to be done other than spelling and punctuation. Those are times when the inspiration just kind of hits and its like a well that doesn't run dry. Then there are times where there is a snippet of an idea and I work it from many different angles, work through all the different scenarios that could be etc. - those I usually let sit for a while, until something hits me and I get that epiphany moment. 

Much like gaining the wisdom of experience, I gained the skills for writing as I grew up. It seems to be second nature, I often don't think about things like this in regards to writing. If I am asked the technicalities I really have to think hard and probably look up the 'rules' I learned along the way because I don't remember them all. It has all sort of meshed together to become just an organic experience. If I do get stuck and can't seem to figure out how to improve something, I start seeking out other unpolished writing that is similar because if I can see where it makes me cringe from others - I can then go back and fix it for myself. (I get lost in good writing, and forget to look for the technique.) 

I do believe rules are made to be broken, doesn't matter if writing or anything else in life. Someone tells me it shouldn't be done - I say why not? and do it. Within reason of course. Can't have desert before dinner? Pffft did it with my kids all the time. A woman can't write a man's perspective? pffft - I have and men tell me they can relate, or wow that sounds like me. So, just do it. Write it. See how it works. Get creative and make it work if it doesn't. When it comes to creativity nothing is impossible. Some things may be a bit more difficult than others but the sky is the limit. 

I am not sure if anyone else has seemed to let it all just merge together where it doesn't even need to be thought about, but from reading the responses it seems that the majority of experienced writers tend to not focus on the separation of the two. Just keep doing it, practice, enjoy finding your own unique process.


----------



## CrimsonAngel223 (Mar 4, 2018)

I'd go with techinal ability anyday of the week, also the artsy-artsy stuff is sort of outdated anyway people want something new in poetry.


----------



## Firmino (Mar 4, 2018)

For me there is no difference between artistry and technical ability, they are one and the same. The etymology of technique is from the Greek _tekhnikós_, “of or pertaining to art, artistic, skilful”.‎


----------



## Tettsuo (Mar 4, 2018)

Technical ability is the scaffolding upon which your art is mounted on.


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 5, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Art is the result of the relentless pursuit of perfecting a craft.
> 
> All arts are based on skills, crafts which can be honed. And all crafts, be it writing, cooking, woodworking, acting, sport, or any other, can, when sufficiently developed, transcend the *required* skill-set and become art.



The reason I posted this is that my understanding is as above, but my experience is different. The pure creation side of my writing doesn't seem, at first glance, to come from anywhere conscious or learned. But unless you believe in collective unconscious, then it must do, right? I wonder if it comes from stuff not so much learned as stuff immersed in over the years. The technical side, in terms of generating content as opposed to editing it, would be along the lines of: right, I'll put a device here, or such and such a plot point here. That's a stage of writing I feel that I am at, though I wouldn't say by any stretch I've mastered it. It would be interesting to see if I can create as much readability doing it that way.



Jeko said:


> I wouldn't delineate between these so cleanly. Your 'artistry' is an expression - to yourself, and to other people (the two images usually being very different) - that manifests itself through the technical procedures you go through in order to put thoughts to paper or screen.
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to replace 'artistry' here with 'imagination'? But still, these are essentially two legs that you must use, with balance, in order to run the race of writing your narrative. Each step of your imagination needs to be followed up with some kind of discipline that stops it from floating away from the core of your work, and each step of discipline needs to be followed by your imagination in order to continue the flow of your work, to not have the story stagnate on perfecting one detail at the expense of losing track of everything else.



Yes, imagination may be a better word. Though I would say that the technical, disciplined steps work best after the imagining stage, using that as raw input. It's interesting to see how the 2 work together.



Xenization said:


> They are the same thing. Without the one you can never use the other with any skill.



Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first bit, for myself - I would say they are different but I suppose they complement each other. It's the write without restraint/edit without mercy dochotomy. But there's another bit plopped on, namely the idea of writing because the narrative is best served by specific thing X at point Y. I tend to write quite freely but sometimes wonder how to consciously put in a bit in a certain place, and how that stacks up against pure creativity. It's like being a sculptor. You have clay, and scuplt it with skill as per your second point, but where does the clay come from? The artistry side of things is akin to generating one's own clay. 



Terry D said:


> There are many examples of writing in which there is abundant skill, but no trace of artistry. Formulaic romance novels, pornographic novels (as opposed to erotica), much of the pulp science fiction of the 20's, 30's, and 40's, westerns, detective novels, the list can go on and on. I'd put the current flow of James Patterson novels on that list, as well as the work of PD James, Dan Brown, and others. Relatively skilled crafts people -- at least to the degree that they are readable -- but no hint of art.



Yes. I find this process of producing prose to a formula strangely fascinating. My ideas tend to be somewhat unformed and resistant to too much structuring to the point where I wonder if I'm missing something.



Ralph Rotten said:


> "Artistry versus Technical Ability"
> 
> I don't understand why there would be a *vs* between them.  In writing you need both.  Artistry is your natural skill for writing, and technical ability is your developed skillset.
> I see lots of people who think that writing is something that can be done either because of natural ability, or sheer intelligence.
> ...




Hmm, no, RR, "vs" is probably not the best choice, but I was  thinking in  terms of creating content rather than editing it - achieving the same  thing via two methods. Does one let fly, or write a specific thing  because one knows that is what will serve the plot best at that point.  Or both? Thinking about it now, I have done both in my WIP and they have  a different feel. The challenge then must be to smooth over those joins  where stuff is happening for a narrative purpose, but must be dressed  up as pure creation. It's like: how do I write to sound more like  myself? Huh. 

Maniacal Perseverence though. That's interesting. To me, the desire do write doesn't feel like any kind of perseverence, maniacal or no. It feels like yielding to an obsession. Frankly I suspect I lack the discipline to just persevere.  I have to want to do the business. I'm certainly in awe of writers who are able to just get through it.


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 5, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Inspiration leads to a book you like. If you are trying to write a book that others might like or that might sell well, even if you don't like it, you need advice, which I think you are calling technique.
> 
> Is that what you mean? Could your technique lead to something you don't particularly like for your own reading?



Yes, that's kind of it. I'm doing lots of submissions at the moment and, well, it's not going as hoped  So I'm reading up on alot of best practises and techniques and so on. To that end, it's not so much whether using such a technique would lead to something I don't like, as it is a case of: how could I consciously, technically, create something that possibly excites me the way purely inspired writing does, and that certainly pulls readers in the way the other writing (sometmes) does. If I shoehorn in device X here, can that have the same effect? I suppose I should try it and test it, eh? Just wondering what others' experiences are.



EmmaSohan said:


> It usually takes inspiration for me to realize I should use a technique, then inspiration to use it well. So they are mixed up for me. Then, if I like what I wrote, I don't care whether it was more technique or inspiration.
> 
> I question the value of the "inciting incident" advice, for example. But, for selling books, I guess it makes sense to have one at the start of the book.



The inspiration, for me, creates the raw meterials. It does also sometimes create the structure too, but I am wondering if that is always the best way. The notion of the inciting incident is a perfect example. When I started my first novel, I readily sacrificed hook on the altar of worldbuilding. The inciting incident didn't happen til chapter four, and I had an editor raise exactly this point. So I trimmed and cut back. But in the book I am reading now, which is by no means a standalone, the II doesn't happen till well over 150 pages in. More precisely, the incident is mentioned alongside a host of other goings on, but its relevance to the protagonist doesn't happen til page 168! What's going on til then? Well, we're immersed in the universe, living in the place, being the character and putting ot feelers into the world. And it's great, really beautiful, engaging writing.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 7, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> The notion of the inciting incident is a perfect example.



In another thread, Jay said that the inciting incident had to be ... But when I looked at books, the main character sometimes got to the actual heart of the story in a slow way. A dame walks into his office, the case is more than he thought, then suddenly someone dies. And, like you said, sometimes the inciting inciting for the reader is not perceived that way by the main character. So, part of technique is knowing all of the options, which then allows more artistry?

Also, what about when things conflict? If you know enough "rules" that they start conflicting, you end up with a lot of artistry to deal without. And I guess more techniques for dealing with the conflict. So, for example, if the first inciting incident is something about the world, an author could spend a lot of time world building. That's a creative solution to what you suggested. I know, it probably doesn't work, it's just an example. But now it's also a technique in my head too. (Thinking how to change one of my books.)


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 7, 2018)

For me the artistic aspect of writing pretty much begins and ends in the formation of ideas; the mystery as to where those ideas come from - that's the part that I find to be an artistic, perhaps even spiritual experience. From that point the actual writing is very much a technical process of extraction and fitting together in as clear a way as possible. There are occasional fragments of artistic whimsy on occasion, but they tend to come when I step away. When I am writing I am not thinking that way.

So I don't get precious about what it means to be creative while I am actually creating. That probably sounds counter-intuitive but I very much believe in writing being not much different than any other practical exercise. Like sweeping floors or laying bricks, I guess... It's really not much different than any other work I have engaged in. I just happen to enjoy it more.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 8, 2018)

This is one of those distraction discussions. It doesn't really matter. Your writing is unlikely to change because of this discussion, either for better or for worse. I don't *need* to know the molecular structure of helium to have some helium filled balloons at a party.

The difference is largely interpretation. This is what it means to me. 

Technical skill is SPaG. Artistry is that something that makes a person's writing enjoyable to read. Artistry largely defies definition. Technical skill is much more concrete.


----------

