Here is one:
In his analysis of the origins of genius, David Brooks doesn’t mention one essential element: love.
Without it, all those hours of strenuous practice will fall short ”” probably far short ”” of the spark that creates genius.
For just one example among many, Leonardo da Vinci’s tiny, meticulously detailed sketchbook drawings of battle scenes convey (somewhat ironically) an almost childlike innocence and enthusiasm for the subject. He’s enjoying himself ”” immensely ”” and the viewer can sense it in every line.
That intense pleasure, not the self-discipline or self-denial, is the real impetus that pushes some humans to work those very long hours and produce something astonishing.
Cynthia Eardley
New York, May 2, 2009
Well, maybe he could have emphasized love more. But is it realistic to expect that of all the effort required to be the best at what you do, you’re going to enjoy every moment, or even most moments?
I’m skeptical because frankly, Brooks’ article really hit a chord with me: I love my subject (math) and I’ve gotten pretty far in it, but my career has been hurt by what I would call a lack of discipline to do some of the mundane tasks of the business (reading and understanding books and other people’s work, etc., as opposed to doing my own work.) Now perhaps that lack of discipline reflects a lack of love for those mundane things. But somehow I have to think even the best get bored with some aspects of their work.
I wonder if the issue is love for the subject or Love’s Subject at work?