Why Artists Secretly Hate Finishing Their Own Work | Comuniq

This site requires Javascript to work properly. Please enable Javascript in your browser.

-->

/Art

A space for all kinds of arts. Post funny, interesting and intelligent things

Members: 4 Join

Moderated by: mozzapp

Why Artists Secretly Hate Finishing Their Own Work

pierre44<br>1784723062<br>[Art]<br>2 comments

Kafka asked his friend Max Brod to burn everything he'd written after he died. Brod didn't do it, and that disobedience is the only reason "The Trial" exists at all. Gogol, on the other hand, actually followed through: he threw the second volume of "Dead Souls" into the fire, years of work, no copy left behind. Francis Bacon destroyed so many of his own canvases over the years that nobody really knows how many pieces existed and vanished before any gallery ever laid eyes on them. These aren't quirky one-off stories about eccentric people. It's a pattern that repeats often enough that it probably deserves more attention than it gets.

The obvious explanation is perfectionism, and that's true, just incomplete. It's not only that the work wasn't good enough. There's a perfect version of the thing living in the creator's head, and the physical object never quite reaches it. The gap between what was imagined and what actually came out of someone's hands is always bigger than any outside viewer can see. A painter looks at their own canvas and sees every brushstroke that should have gone differently; someone walking past the gallery just sees a nice painting. That mismatch in perception is brutal on its own, and it already explains a good chunk of the urge to destroy.

There's a rougher layer underneath, though, which is the fear of judgment. While a piece is unfinished, it's still pure potential. Nobody can call it bad, because technically it isn't anything yet. The moment you finish it and show it, it becomes a fixed object that can be criticized, compared, forgotten. Some people would rather live with the infinite potential of something never finished than face the finite verdict of something shown. Sounds almost backwards, but it holds together psychologically: the eternal draft protects the ego in a way the published work never will.

There's also a control angle that tends to get skipped in shallower takes on this. Destroying your own work is, in a strange way, an act of power. In a life where almost nothing is actually under control, where the creative process itself is full of chance and frustration, the final act of tearing up the canvas or deleting the file is the one decision that's entirely yours from start to finish. Nobody can take that away. Elizabeth Bishop rewrote her own poems to an almost obsessive degree, and more than once she just abandoned entire versions, not because they were bad, but because she felt she hadn't fully pinned down what she wanted to say yet.

So is this always failure? That's the more interesting question to raise, because the answer isn't obvious. Some argue destruction is as much a part of the creative process as creation itself, a kind of radical editing that only exists because the artist is taking their own standard seriously. Michelangelo burned preparatory drawings before he died, and nobody calls that a failure on his part, they call it control over his own legacy. On the other hand, you could argue the opposite: that abandoned work, precisely because it was never tested against the world, carries a kind of protected myth that might not survive being finished. We'll never know if the second volume of "Dead Souls" would've been a masterpiece or a disaster, and some people prefer it that way.

There's also the question of who has the right to the work, and it's worth bringing up here. When an artist dies leaving instructions to destroy what's left, who has more legitimacy, the explicit wishes of the person who made it, or the interest of the public and heirs in preserving it? Brod disobeyed Kafka and the world got one of the most important writers of the twentieth century. Does that justify the disobedience? Or did it just happen to work out that time?

The context has shifted quite a bit in the last few decades too, and it's worth pointing out. Today it's easier to abandon something publicly than to physically destroy it. A deleted thread, an archived GitHub repo, a novel draft sitting in a folder called "unfinished" for the rest of your life, never deleted, never published either. The culture of "show your work" runs straight into the older right to simply never show anything, and that creates a specific kind of anxiety Kafka couldn't have imagined. And now, with AI generating dozens or hundreds of variations of an image or a piece of text with no emotional cost to discarding any of them, is the relationship with "finishing" something changing too? Maybe we're raising a generation of artists for whom abandoning something stopped being a drama and became just a click.

Have you ever destroyed or...