[magicalhippo]

> He writes “What you see in the biographies of great artists, great writers, great anything is that they are good at figuring out where the vectors align.” Which is just plainly and absolutely not true

I take it the author means "great" as in "successful".

[llamaimperative]

It is not true in that case either, or at least “successful” is still poorly defined.

It’s defined implicitly in this blog as commercially successful within the timeframe I had to sell their art. Which is a perfectly defensible definition, but should be explicit so people know what argument they’re hearing.

[munificent]

It was clear to me from the article. The very next section is about how being economically sustainable is important if your goal is to maximize the amount of art you can present to a community.

[magicalhippo]

> commercially successful within the timeframe I had to sell their art

That's what I meant with successful. Not sure what other variations there would be, though I'm not a native speaker.

[llamaimperative]

For example, to receive prestigious awards would also fit under "successful," regardless of monetary components. To be recognized after death as one of the Masters would be successful.

[magicalhippo]

The author is talking about the artistry being aligned with market forces in the paragraph preceding the quote.

I don't really see how either of those definitions fit in that context.

[llamaimperative]

Sure, but now you're just circularly defining it back to what was initially pointed out: this is implicitly a very specific definition of greatness, ergo yeah, you replace the word with "successful" and it's implicitly a very specific definition of successful.