That quote appears to be misattributed. Should be Louis Nizer (1948).

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi#Misattribute... https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Nizer

It appears as early as 1923 but is not cited.

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/he_w...

I climbed back out of bed just to upvote this. It's going in my little file of quotes that give me "the tingles". Thanks.

As an exercise to the reader, name:

1. He who works with his hands and heart, but not his head.

2. He who works with his head and heart, but not his hands.

1. yearning hobbyist

2. critic

1. Some Zen practitioners. 2. Philosophers.

Are both artists. He who can shut down his head when it gets in the way, is an artist. He who can produce astonishing things without the use of his hands is also an Artist - of a very special kind. As far as I can tell, Heart is at the heart of Art.

Also: with his head but neither hands nor heart, and with heart but neither hands nor head.

For completeness there's the null set.

For these cases:

Who is someone who works with...

...his heart, but neither hands nor head: A blood donor.

...his head, but neither hands nor heart: A brain in a jar.

...neither hands, heart, nor head: A pointy-haired boss.

I think this is the way it is commonly thought of in society, I don't think this is a particularly good way to look at it though. I think the implied assumption in this framework, is that a laborer is less than a craftsman, who is in turn less than an artist. I see this as ripe for abuse by people who wish to project an elitist view on the world.

Research has demonstrated that people who view their craft as a calling, take pride in it and view it as an important duty in society (even if it is menial) are happier and healthier. I remember watching an interview with a migrant farm worker who took pride in the speed and quality of his berry picking, and the fact that he could pick with two hands simultaneously. That was such an inspiring example for me.

The time involved is basically the same for laborer, craftsman and artist; they differ only in quality of and intention behind the effort. The laborer could be a craftsman or an artist by changing his perspective and approach to his work. From this perspective, the laborer is lesser because he does not fully apply himself, not as a result of his profession.

Yeah, I think that's how the GP meant it, ideally that would be the way it is thought of, but I could see it being used as a justification to look down on people like that farm worker.

I understand that criticism but i would urge people to focus on the contrast between working with just your hands vs head vs heart. That, and i think anyone who aspires to become an "artist" in a trade is on the right path.

I appreciate the sentiment, but what if striving for "artistry" turns out to just cause a nuisance for the user? I think the problem here is that everyone experiences "art" differently, and what may be an impactful experience for some may just be irritating for others. Is it always better for someone to strive with their heart?

What if striving for artistry delights the user, but frustrates the spouse and children or leads to the deterioration of the artist's physical health or mental wellbeing?

There are a lot of ways to deconstruct a one dimensional artists > craftsmen > laborers point of view because it is overly simplistic.

If people are elitists at work and they're snooty about it, why stop them?

It may be better if a person used that creative energy in a side project, if the product they work on has a large, varied user base.

I would not want to stop people being elitist, only for those who are to understand that their behaviour has a cost on at least some of those around them.

It surely helps, but is this true? I don't really see how something like that could be verified.

The implication is not a good one, either. What is one without passion do, just give up? Doesn't seem to be terribly helpful thinking, especially since it's not clear where passions come from or how they develop.

Passion comes from having interest. Interest comes from noticing particular facets about something that amuse you, perhaps because they are mysterious or perhaps because they give you pleasure. So if you want to become passionate about something, search for aspects about it that amuse you and focus on those things. That's not the whole story, but it's a start. It's worked for me at least.

Franklin was also a genius.

No, he didn't come from wealth or a highly-educated family or any of that. But he could think and learn, far more so than most. Something his biographers (though not TFA) frequently take pains to note.

Now that quote really makes my day! Thank you.