Some of the famous painters we know only got recognition post humous. Most struggled recognition in life but some had been lucky to be at the right place at the right time. If not alive, at least their works were enough to catch a curator's eye.
I'm saying success here as blogging also depends on luck but it's the type of luck that is intended. If someone posts an uninteresting item, what are the chances that people would take a second look before moving on? the harsh truth about self marketing online is that you only get one chance that lasts a few seconds to get people engaged.
Digital artists know this better than anyone that thumbnail matters before personality when it comes to initial interactions. Have you noticed the pattern whenever you're consuming content online? how those YT thumbnails are designed to catch attention or the first few seconds of preview teases you?
You wouldn't bother looking twice if it's just meh content. It has to be something on both extremes to get you hooked. Either it's so good you checked it twice or so bad that you had to check it twice. And average visuals don't get that much love as those in the extremes.
Get good or go home.
Keep improving your craft even if no one else notices and do it for the sake of just getting better at something. Once you reached a threshold where you think you're good enough, the goal post moves because the peak opened up more mountains to climb. If you want to attract recognition, become the stuff that's worth recognizing so by the time a curator passes by, that recognition wasn't just pure luck.
How does this relate to the average person that blogs for a hobby versus blogging to earn?
My arbitrary, opinion, and two cents is that the former lean on internal locus of control and the latter uses external locus of control.
The one that blogs for hobby does not limit their creativity or ties their passion from external validation cues. Nevermind my art sucks, I'd still draw stupid shit cause it's fun but now I have a blockchain as a notebook. The other blogger that relies on external locus of control would require constant validation that their work is worth something because their own appreciation for their own effort s isn't enough.
There has to be a lolheug upvote/likes/shares/quotes/retweets for my post to get me convinced I made something. In the pursuit of this measurable and specific outcome, the effort may not be proportional to the actual rewards. That it's no longer worth writing thousands of words or spend countless of hours composing something that will lead to the void once published.
I'd like to see Hive having more people blogging because they enjoy the act and don't their shit if no one sees them.
Sharing my recent DeviantArt post
This is the most views, favorites and engagement I ever had in all my posts about art there. And I didn't get a single dime for the trouble but that rare event just gave me some dopamine. But even if no one else gave that amount of attention on me, I'd still create stuff and share it there because I like what I do and just getting external $ for the trouble is a feature and not a defining existence why I have a hobby.
Well, that's just my 2 cents.
Thanks for your time.
I'm in between, but mostly the latter. I guess I need to learn better.
The funniest instance I have ever seen of this was one of meesterboom's beer reviews where he kept drinking this beer that he claimed was really gross and reacting to it every single time, he said something about how it was so bad he had to have another sip to make sure it was actually that bad and each time it was actually that bad XD
Might be a hard ask given that most (if not all) of us were at least initially lured by the potential for money.
I like to pretend it's reasonably easy to pick who enjoys what they're doing and who is in it purely for the money though :)