I just thought of something. The performance cost/benefit equation! Here's how it works: the amount of time one spends practicing divided by the amount of total time performing before an audience. Each audience member's time is added.. and after the equation, if it is less than 1 then it was worth it! So, a performer practices 10 hours on his/her talent and performs before 100 people for 15 minutes (which is quite long). That adds to 600minutes/1500minutes = 0.4! Very worth it! Of course there are personal benefits from practicing as well (perfectionists understand this). I think something should be added to the equation to balance it a bit more. But consider a simple coin trick... you'll probably show about 30 people the trick and only practice it for about 7 minutes in total. That's 10seconds/person so... it totals about 7minutes/5minutes.. hmm. not really worth it. So this needs to be modified, any ideas?
I understand that earning money isn't in this equation. I suppose I'm only considering the 'oooh' effect (reward) which gives the performer delight in perfoming for a group of people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think this equation works well at all. I don't think there's much of a difference (or at least the difference you suggest) between a standing ovation after 2 years of practice over an ovation after two weeks of practice. I don't think the latter performer is going to get more "payout". In fact, I think that the prior performer will have a much deeper sense of satisfaction because more of her life has been oriented towards this ovation moment.
And what of a coin trick? The more difficult you know a trick is, the more satisfied you will be with a good response, and perhaps even secretly satisfied at a negative response, knowing that the onlookers don't realize what genius they are ignorant of. Whereas if you master an easy trick with seven minutes of practice, there is the pleasure of knowing that you put so little time into something that delights, but it seems like that's more akin to the delight of a day-trader or someone who came home from half an hour at the casino with an extra $20. It's not the deeper satisfaction of someone who's actually invested in a process/skill/craft.
This conversation reaches way past performance. It touches on why we do any of the things we do, and how we think about what's worth doing.
yeah, this idea, while interesting, doesn't carry much value. I just thought of it since I've been trying to practice a new entertaining talent. Somehow my mind went from considering how much time I'd been spending practicing to considering performers in general and how they decide the value of expending so much energy for mere performances.
I'll probably leave this post up for a few more days and then take it down because I don't think it gains the respect of going down in history as one of my blog posts.
I would leave it up, but refresh the topic in a new post in a way that extends the conversation toward either 'What's worth doing?" or "Man at play."
I think it is interesting Luke. However, there are two main variables that are lacking in your analysis. First, not all applause is created equally. Some is more valuable than other applause.
Second, the practice and developed skill can be valuable in itself, even if its ultimate aim is to gain appreciation from others.
I think if you add these variables then you have a robust formula for calculating the worth of whatever skill you are trying to develop.
However, one final factor that can make this tricky is that not all the values will be unchanging over time. The values can change, so you either need to make sure the stationary values are the most influential, or go up another level and develop a formula to predict how the values will change.
Now, it is when you figure out how to calculate the value of these different variables that Dave's discussion becomes relevant - i.e. how do we ascribe value to things?
That discussion with your formula should give a good practical framework for skill development.
Post a Comment