The f.Law of Averages


On average, an average person is average. Average in capabilities, expectations, demands, and standards.

Many, most, more, and a lot has for long been used as a measure of a creation or deed’s greatness.

So if readership (or the number of a publication’s subscribers) is a true measure of the quality of the writings, then not all great writings will produce a large number of readers, and not all writings that are read (liked and shared) by a large number of readers are great.

So the worth of the doer, creator, or performer is in the hands (or rather: minds) of the done for, created for, or performed for’s standards or expectations.

A person with average thinking capabilities will find a great well-written thought-provoking writing boring, intimidating, and a flop.

Democracy too relies on the ‘greatness by numbers’ modus operandi to appoint head of state.

But, not every great political party will get a chance to govern. And, not every political party that governs is great.

Take a look at the people that your art appeals to, their standards and capabilities are a true measure of the quality of your art.

Whether roast beef is way better than worms, in both taste and nutrition, a worm (and not the beef) is likely to lure a fish to the hook.

The only time when mediocre art is justifiable is when the artist is merely meeting the market’s demand.

I mean, what’s the use of roasting the poor ox if all that the fish wants is worms?

The average joe’s art is not as great as he thinks, desires, or assumes, it just complies with average people’s average demands, and average expectations.

(At times great things are not really great. They’re just well marketed. Again, not all great things are well marketed, and not all well marketed things are great.)




[ • • • • ]



— June 22, 2010.