The OP seemed pretty open-ended, and it seems to me that for any problem, a well-designed organization will outperform a well-chosen individual.
Counterexample: Very few great works of literature were written by committee. The King James Bible may be the one example of one that was. (Note that I’m explicitly excluding “literature” meant to be performed by actors instead of read from a page.)
Counterexample: Very few great works of literature were written by committee.
Counter counter example: very few great works of literature were created by hermits. And, of those that were written by hermits, most of the time that’s legendary, like with the Tao Te Ching.
It’s true that in any organization, there’s a level where individuals dominate. Organizations are built up of individuals, so that level must exist and it must be significant. But whenever you go up a step, you often find an organization that helps those individuals accomplish a task. Form follows function- and so for creative works, those organizations tend to be loose groups of mutually inspiring people. Good design happens in chunks.
The case for literature seems a bit worse than the case for painting- but my feeling is still the best literature comes out of an organization of great and good people, not from fantastic people working alone. Particularly if you’re only interested in the best literature you’ve heard of, not the best literature that didn’t sell a thousand copies.
Well, yeah, there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that, when considered as literature, is actually pretty bad by any standard, such as the extensive listing of the laws of ancient Israel. And there have been a lot of changes in the English language since the King James Bible was written, so it’s hard to judge it as a translation by reading it today, but it’s supposed to have had some really good poetry in it—for a translation, at least.
And there have been a lot of changes in the English language since the King James Bible was written
That’s a good point. I’m also comparing it to other translations done by committees. Better committees with more education, superior technology and with more early manuscripts to work with. That doesn’t leave much to be impressed with.
Counterexample: Very few great works of literature were written by committee. The King James Bible may be the one example of one that was. (Note that I’m explicitly excluding “literature” meant to be performed by actors instead of read from a page.)
Counter counter example: very few great works of literature were created by hermits. And, of those that were written by hermits, most of the time that’s legendary, like with the Tao Te Ching.
It’s true that in any organization, there’s a level where individuals dominate. Organizations are built up of individuals, so that level must exist and it must be significant. But whenever you go up a step, you often find an organization that helps those individuals accomplish a task. Form follows function- and so for creative works, those organizations tend to be loose groups of mutually inspiring people. Good design happens in chunks.
The case for literature seems a bit worse than the case for painting- but my feeling is still the best literature comes out of an organization of great and good people, not from fantastic people working alone. Particularly if you’re only interested in the best literature you’ve heard of, not the best literature that didn’t sell a thousand copies.
I would dispute that (based on the opinions and information I held when I was religious). The King James Bible is overrated.
Well, yeah, there’s a lot of stuff in the Bible that, when considered as literature, is actually pretty bad by any standard, such as the extensive listing of the laws of ancient Israel. And there have been a lot of changes in the English language since the King James Bible was written, so it’s hard to judge it as a translation by reading it today, but it’s supposed to have had some really good poetry in it—for a translation, at least.
That’s a good point. I’m also comparing it to other translations done by committees. Better committees with more education, superior technology and with more early manuscripts to work with. That doesn’t leave much to be impressed with.