Early in his career, Philip Glass’s commitment to becoming a composer earned him a Fulbright scholarship to study in Europe. His scholarship covered his tuition fees with Nadia Boulanger, a revered music teacher and composer. Money was a constant concern, though. As he traveled through Europe, he mostly visited churches and cemeteries because they cost him nothing. When his scholarship wasn’t renewed, his teacher Nadia waived his tuition fees. 

Philip optimized for commitment. After many years, his bet paid off, and Philip would go on to become a world-renowned composer. His journey is exceptional only in how drastically it paid off for him. There are many of Philip’s peers who commit fully, take on financial risk, and fall short of achieving world-renowned success. Nadia couldn’t waive tuition for all her students. It’s a high risk strategy, and it’s not for everyone.

T.S. Eliot also started off his career optimizing for commitment to poetry. The strategy didn’t work for him; it took a toll on his mental and physical health. He changed his approach. Instead of writing poetry to earn money, he took on a job at Lloyd’s bank just before he turned 30. The income helped soothe his nerves; he became healthier and actually wrote more poetry. T.S. found that optimizing for balance actually nurtured both his financial needs and his creative expression.

If optimizing for commitment—a high risk strategy—is not for you, it’s wise to recognize this and take on a different approach. Instead of optimizing for commitment, optimize for balance. 

To people who don’t understand, this might look and sound like quitting. If it sustains you and allows you to make your art for longer, and with greater freedom, then it’s precisely the opposite. Optimizing for balance will enable you to be more creative, in a way that optimizing for commitment could not.