Yesterday I had a major realization. I wouldn't quite call it an epiphany because it was not an intuitive realization. Somebody had to articulate so well something about me that's been holding me back all these years. Worse yet, I have been actually proud and arrogant of having this quality in me and in a few instances, may have even recommended or advised others to embrace this. That quality or attribute if you will, is Perfectionism. Right after this realization, so many things fell in place - I have not been prolific, much to my disappointment and I have not really progressed much in my musical and photography pursuits. I don't buy some cool things because I can't afford the 'best' one. You know, things like that.
I guess at some point in my life, when I was still emotionally dependent, I may have been perfect in something and achieved good results. I also guess that thing stuck on me since then and I somehow refused to think otherwise. I have always been a perfectionist, with or without my knowledge. When I came to my full senses several years back, I realized that I was and still continued to be. I never questioned it. I didn't feel the need to, since somehow I felt it was helping me. This blog will mostly attack being a perfectionist, but I'll still put down my thoughts to justify the benefits of being one.
"There is always room for improvement" is what a perfectionist thinks and doesn't stop until he/she achieves it. This is actually not humility but actually a manifestation of egotism. It is very true. The world is an imperfect place. If it were ideal and perfect, we'd all be very productive and produce thousands of movies every year and produce many million paintings, music albums and what not. Think of the body - the human body or any other animal's body is a great design - it is just a combination of atoms and molecules in a unique way that gives the body a soul and the functionality. The body is able to do so many things - it has energy of its own, it can walk, run, jump, sing, think, speak, dance and what not. But it is all a collection of atoms that is doing these. So, could you call it a "perfect" design? I am afraid not. The body has its imperfections - we fall sick, we age, we are vulnerable to so many diseases; we have only five fingers in each limb though we might have found a use for the sixth one had it existed. The point is, the design of the body is near perfect in an imperfect world. It is designed so that we may appreciate the beauty of actually designing something rather than waiting till we get the perfect idea or get the job done perfectly. We were not designed not to fall sick at all, but designed so that our body at least has the ability to fight the foreign germs. The design of the body was 'stopped' at an interesting point and here we are, walking around with that body, doing so many productive things.
Consider the plight of a movie director, say Mani Ratnam. I am pretty sure he will be able to make a movie a month, for the number of ideas that he has. But then, he makes only one every two years. Demanding such a tight schedule for himself would imply that he is a perfectionist. He is actually not. He has learnt to deal with the logistics of making a movie, that may have at first seemed to limit his creativity, but he has realized that that's what it takes to actually come out with a movie. He was meant to be a creative animal and he has come up with nice ways of exhibiting his creativity, though it may mean that he is not very prolific. Am I being clear? Trying to be a perfectionist will limit your productivity. You will never finish that movie if you intend it to be perfect - you might rather live with creating ten relatively imperfect movies, which would at least open a channel to the world to see what you are all about. The best examples corresponding to this context are those low budget movies that became a big hit - movies like Autograph - the director didn't have the greatest technicians at his disposal, he didn't have the greatest music for the movie, yet he managed to give a great script/movie that overshadowed all the other imperfections in it. In the end, the director will be remembered for the movie and not for falling short on shooting in exotic locations.
Given a chance, a painter will never lift his brush off from the canvas - he'd like to keep painting and improving it, but then he wouldn't be able to produce many paintings this way. In fact, some imperfection may be even necessary to tell you that it is a painting and not a photograph. If you look at some of the greatest paintings, they may look extremely realistic with regards to their color composition and the subjects, but then there are always things in them that make them a painting and not a photograph.
I've heard a lot of people say that Ilayaraja is a perfectionist. I truly believed them and may be it's because of this that I too held on to being a perfectionist. Digression start: did you notice the world perfectionist beneath itself in the last two sentences - I have been noticing this happening quite a bit recently. Digression end. Actually, thinking about it, if Ilayaraja had been a perfectionist, he couldn't have been so prolific. He has composed music for over 850 movies. How could that be possible if he had not been compromising on certain things? Actually, what he is, is a perfectionist on a lower level, namely, he is a stickler for bringing out the recording as close to what he had imagined, but then he has not been a perfectionist in constantly changing the tune to make it better. He just let himself create and as a result, we have thousands of songs. The recording quality is not always great, but he kept moving on, making way for the new songs. In other words, if he had a really professional orchestra at his disposal that could read his mind reasonably well, he would have far less complaints. Now, that was a major realization.
It may be that perfectionists allow too much of their mind to interfere with the work of their heart. That's my line, dont' steal it :)
The whole analysis applies to playing an instrument, dancing and everything on this planet. Cellphone is a great work of engineering, but it has its imperfections. It is like chiseling out a statue from an imperfectly shaped stone - the stone just looks better later. In other words, you have liberated the statue from the stone. The statue is still made of the same stone, but then looks much nicer now.
Now, I begin to look around and analyze others' lives with the same perspective. Some people are naturally prolific - they don't make a conscious effort to be like that. They are inherently not perfectionists. That's why they go about giving shows all over the country, composing music for hundreds of movies, writing so many articles for the newspaper, enjoying all the latest electronic gadgets, etc. You get the idea. Not being a perfectionist has something to do with 'living the moment'. There is definitely a knot somewhere between the two.
Now, not being a perfectionist may suggest that you don't set yourself high bars. How are we to defend this argument? This requires more careful analysis. Being a perfectionist is bad, in the sense that you may be very critical of yourself and your work. If you consciously realize not to do this, it is possible to still hold high ideals and a high bar for your work. It is like allowing yourself to learn from your mistakes and gradually build up your efficiency of creating great stuff consistently. To illustrate this with an example - let's again take Maniratnam. What would he do, considering that there is not much out there to satisfy his perfectionist attitude? If there is little-than-expected resource in cinematography, he could write a stronger script that goes well with it; if there is no great music source available, he could look at pushing songs to the background or playing them only for a short while; if the logistics take a long time, he could develop means of becoming more efficient. Nothing here is intended personal or to offend anyone, so read this for what it is worth. This paragraph may need some more elaboration. I seriously wonder what Mani would do if he doesn't have a good music source or a good cameraman. As he has demonstrated many times, he will just get the best out of whatever he has. He somehow has that skill. He must be a great manager that identifies talent very well. There has to be lot to learn from him.
I guess at some point in my life, when I was still emotionally dependent, I may have been perfect in something and achieved good results. I also guess that thing stuck on me since then and I somehow refused to think otherwise. I have always been a perfectionist, with or without my knowledge. When I came to my full senses several years back, I realized that I was and still continued to be. I never questioned it. I didn't feel the need to, since somehow I felt it was helping me. This blog will mostly attack being a perfectionist, but I'll still put down my thoughts to justify the benefits of being one.
"There is always room for improvement" is what a perfectionist thinks and doesn't stop until he/she achieves it. This is actually not humility but actually a manifestation of egotism. It is very true. The world is an imperfect place. If it were ideal and perfect, we'd all be very productive and produce thousands of movies every year and produce many million paintings, music albums and what not. Think of the body - the human body or any other animal's body is a great design - it is just a combination of atoms and molecules in a unique way that gives the body a soul and the functionality. The body is able to do so many things - it has energy of its own, it can walk, run, jump, sing, think, speak, dance and what not. But it is all a collection of atoms that is doing these. So, could you call it a "perfect" design? I am afraid not. The body has its imperfections - we fall sick, we age, we are vulnerable to so many diseases; we have only five fingers in each limb though we might have found a use for the sixth one had it existed. The point is, the design of the body is near perfect in an imperfect world. It is designed so that we may appreciate the beauty of actually designing something rather than waiting till we get the perfect idea or get the job done perfectly. We were not designed not to fall sick at all, but designed so that our body at least has the ability to fight the foreign germs. The design of the body was 'stopped' at an interesting point and here we are, walking around with that body, doing so many productive things.
Consider the plight of a movie director, say Mani Ratnam. I am pretty sure he will be able to make a movie a month, for the number of ideas that he has. But then, he makes only one every two years. Demanding such a tight schedule for himself would imply that he is a perfectionist. He is actually not. He has learnt to deal with the logistics of making a movie, that may have at first seemed to limit his creativity, but he has realized that that's what it takes to actually come out with a movie. He was meant to be a creative animal and he has come up with nice ways of exhibiting his creativity, though it may mean that he is not very prolific. Am I being clear? Trying to be a perfectionist will limit your productivity. You will never finish that movie if you intend it to be perfect - you might rather live with creating ten relatively imperfect movies, which would at least open a channel to the world to see what you are all about. The best examples corresponding to this context are those low budget movies that became a big hit - movies like Autograph - the director didn't have the greatest technicians at his disposal, he didn't have the greatest music for the movie, yet he managed to give a great script/movie that overshadowed all the other imperfections in it. In the end, the director will be remembered for the movie and not for falling short on shooting in exotic locations.
Given a chance, a painter will never lift his brush off from the canvas - he'd like to keep painting and improving it, but then he wouldn't be able to produce many paintings this way. In fact, some imperfection may be even necessary to tell you that it is a painting and not a photograph. If you look at some of the greatest paintings, they may look extremely realistic with regards to their color composition and the subjects, but then there are always things in them that make them a painting and not a photograph.
I've heard a lot of people say that Ilayaraja is a perfectionist. I truly believed them and may be it's because of this that I too held on to being a perfectionist. Digression start: did you notice the world perfectionist beneath itself in the last two sentences - I have been noticing this happening quite a bit recently. Digression end. Actually, thinking about it, if Ilayaraja had been a perfectionist, he couldn't have been so prolific. He has composed music for over 850 movies. How could that be possible if he had not been compromising on certain things? Actually, what he is, is a perfectionist on a lower level, namely, he is a stickler for bringing out the recording as close to what he had imagined, but then he has not been a perfectionist in constantly changing the tune to make it better. He just let himself create and as a result, we have thousands of songs. The recording quality is not always great, but he kept moving on, making way for the new songs. In other words, if he had a really professional orchestra at his disposal that could read his mind reasonably well, he would have far less complaints. Now, that was a major realization.
It may be that perfectionists allow too much of their mind to interfere with the work of their heart. That's my line, dont' steal it :)
The whole analysis applies to playing an instrument, dancing and everything on this planet. Cellphone is a great work of engineering, but it has its imperfections. It is like chiseling out a statue from an imperfectly shaped stone - the stone just looks better later. In other words, you have liberated the statue from the stone. The statue is still made of the same stone, but then looks much nicer now.
Now, I begin to look around and analyze others' lives with the same perspective. Some people are naturally prolific - they don't make a conscious effort to be like that. They are inherently not perfectionists. That's why they go about giving shows all over the country, composing music for hundreds of movies, writing so many articles for the newspaper, enjoying all the latest electronic gadgets, etc. You get the idea. Not being a perfectionist has something to do with 'living the moment'. There is definitely a knot somewhere between the two.
Now, not being a perfectionist may suggest that you don't set yourself high bars. How are we to defend this argument? This requires more careful analysis. Being a perfectionist is bad, in the sense that you may be very critical of yourself and your work. If you consciously realize not to do this, it is possible to still hold high ideals and a high bar for your work. It is like allowing yourself to learn from your mistakes and gradually build up your efficiency of creating great stuff consistently. To illustrate this with an example - let's again take Maniratnam. What would he do, considering that there is not much out there to satisfy his perfectionist attitude? If there is little-than-expected resource in cinematography, he could write a stronger script that goes well with it; if there is no great music source available, he could look at pushing songs to the background or playing them only for a short while; if the logistics take a long time, he could develop means of becoming more efficient. Nothing here is intended personal or to offend anyone, so read this for what it is worth. This paragraph may need some more elaboration. I seriously wonder what Mani would do if he doesn't have a good music source or a good cameraman. As he has demonstrated many times, he will just get the best out of whatever he has. He somehow has that skill. He must be a great manager that identifies talent very well. There has to be lot to learn from him.
No comments:
Post a Comment