WHEN DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF "GOOD" AT SOMETHING?

For the longest time, I've always associated being "good" at a thing with being "proficient" at said thing. If I saw two people, for example, drawing the exact same portrait in the exact same way and with the exact same quality, but Person A completes the portrait in half the time as Person B, I would argue that Person A is good at art, at least compared to Person B.

Recently, however, I've talked with a few others who gave me different views on what it means to be "good," and now I'm not so sure what the word really means anymore to creators. I'm gonna list a general summation of the different points I've gotten. Keep in mind that, even though I'm using art a lot as examples, I'm talking about any form of creative endeavor, be it writing, programming, developing, etc.


You never give up: It may seem like a tired, overused line, but that's only because it never loses relevance as time goes on. Did you know that the character designer for the game Rumble Roses was actually paralyzed from the neck down? This article, which unfortunately is about his passing, also contains samples of his work. Keep in mind that he drew those with a stylus in his mouth.

Imagine for a second how long that must've taken. Based on my definition earlier, I doubt Mr. Kotobuki was particularly proficient, but his portraits ended up being better than anything I've ever done and probably will ever do. There's no possible way I could ever say he wasn't a good artist. However, there has to be a line between being actually good at creating something and just beating your head against a wall until the wall topples over. Are you "good" at creating a thing? Or just too stubborn to quit? Are they the same thing?


The ability to translate what's in your head to a tangible product: If you have a clear image of what you want portrait to look like, but are frustrated because you hand keeps shaking and can't draw straight lines or you can't tell the difference between different shades of red and so your portrait always looks just a little off, are you "bad" at art?


You don't get "good." Just a little bit better: I'm not sure I agree with this line of thinking, because it places a bit too heavy burden on yourself and can quickly cause you to slip into needless self-depreciation. However, the reasoning behind it seems solid enough: Telling yourself that you're "good" at something quickly leads to complacency, and that can lead to never getting better at your craft.


It's not for you to decide: As creators, it's very difficult to see past the flaws in our own work. It's easy to see the flaws in your own work far more easily than a consumer, and so it shouldn't be uncommon for you to have a lower opinion of it than the consumer would and have difficulty taking in the praise the work may get. If you make something that people love, are you good at what you're doing?


I'm curious as to your opinion on what it means to be "good". Do you agree with any of these? Disagree? Have your own view? Let's talk about it.

author=unity
Beyond that, I find this question hard to answer. It's easy to feel like you are not good at something, even when you are, and on the opposite end of the spectrum are people who are mediocre or worse at something, but think they are good. It doesn't help that one can always improve, so "good" seems very nebulous.

If I asked you to come up with a list of your strengths as a developer, what would you put on there and, for the purpose of this topic, why?

As for the nebulous, context-dependent arguments, I certainly agree that you can always improve and that there's a huge grey area when it comes to how you you feel you are at something, but I think there are at least some hard standards you can apply to being good/skilled. As an example, if Jimmy were to put himself up for hire with this drawing of Sonic the Hedgehog that I made in 15 seconds using a mouse as an example of his work, I highly, HIGHLY doubt anyone out there would take him seriously.

So what I'm asking is what would be the point where little Jimmy WOULD be taken seriously? No one has to sing his praises or anything, but where would he have to get to for you to call him a skilled artist? Is it something as simple as looking at the above picture and saying, "As long as it's NOT that?" Or is there some other measurement you use?

I guess a more narrow subject would be more appropriate in terms of this topic? Maybe instead of "good" what about "skilled?" I was hesitant to use that word since it implied a higher level of ability than what I was aiming for, but if it narrows down the discussion to something more tangible, then we can shift to that instead.

author=Cap_H
I assume, I'm good at something, when nobody around me seems to be better at it. That seems to be like never recently (try to have a hyper talented musician as a flatmate).

That feels more like being the best as something, rather than just being good.

author=NeverSilent
I don't even understand the question.

Being "good" at something is such an ambiguous, context-dependent concept.

Do you consider yourself good at programming? Do you consider yourself good at 3D modeling? What about puzzle design? If your answer is no, then where would you have to be in order for you to consider yourself good at these fields? Does it stop at simply being not bad? Or is there some other form of measurement you use?

Why do you even need a definition for the word in the first place?

Haha, now I'M the one confused. Are you asking me specifically? Or just in general?

If the former, then, like I said in the OP, I recently heard a few different viewpoints on what it means to be good, so I'm curious as to what people here define as good. If the latter, then, well, it's important to know the definition of a word. Because it's a word used to describe something. If you're using the word "good" without caring what it means, then it completely devalues whatever praise it otherwise would have carried.

author=Merlandese
Never giving up is probably the best advice, but I wouldn't use it as a qualifier for being good. Some people SHOULD give up. :P

True. I would say that never giving up is the way to get good rather than being good.