« Corporate Blogging | Main | How to Measure Trust in Your Organisation? »

What is the Mark of a Master?

Gareth published this list of tips
on how to write texts properly, or at least increase the chance of it being
written properly. An article that was referenced to a lot in the last days. Last
weekend in a Waterstone's in Salisbury I picked up a book on how to write
philosophical texts, which is of interest as I am currently studying philosophy.
What is the use of these sort of guides, since well established writers often
say they actually do not know how they write so well, or that it is because of
their inspiration. Yesterday I talked to a colleague of mine about this, who is
also composer. He brought the same question up, albeit in somewhat other words.
"If anyone can read these guides and use the tools mentioned in them, how
come not everyone is a writer or composer?" This to me translates into "What
is the mark of a master?".

Two things came to mind trying to answer this question. First a spark of originality. You need
this in order to have a starting point for whatever it is you'll create. Many
people don't get this far, maybe because they do not recognize it when it comes
to them. How often have you had a thought that you tossed aside because noone
else seemed to think about the same thing? Only to find out months later that
your thought has become mainstream, and in fact was an original thought the
first time. Are the creative people better at recognizing their original
thoughts, or passionate enough to keep them, or don't they care that their
thought does not seem to register with others at first? Second is the
invisibility of the tools in the final product. In well made artefacts,
of whatever sort or form, there is usually no trace left by the tools that made
them (unless by intention of the maker). Beautiful statues don't show the
chipmarks made by hammer and chisel, finely crafted tapestries don't show the
individual knots they're made of, well composed music does not make apparent the
deliberate tricks to guide your ears in the right direction, or its underlying
mathematical patterns. So even if I have read a guide on writing, this might
mean I still can't write well, because of the all too apparent use of tools in
the texts I produce. It's the stuff where people don't plainly see or know how
you did it, that they find clever. And for those who say they don't know how
they create, it might just be that the tools have become invisible to them as
well! Tools so completely incorporated into your own skills, that you don't
recognize them as such any more. Thus the craftmanship becomes invisible in the
master. Would you agree to these two ingredients that mark the master? Or are
there others you can come up with? This is a very relevant question as it
touches on the tacit/explicit divide in knowledge. The cleft between codified
knowledge (~information) and the ability to put it to use well.

Permalink
(posted by Ton Zijlstra at November 22, 2002 12:19 PM)