so i was sitting in english class today, and my teacher is discussing authors and how they write, how 'writing is supposed to be a journey - destination unknown.' so he's making perfect sense, and then he says something to the effect of this...
"people who just blast it out, boom, all in one shot, and call it finished are lazy."
he's a big stickler on editing and draft-writing, and he always emphasizes tweaking your work, getting it perfect. he is always saying you should make everything the best it can be, turn the crap into something worth reading. but his comment irked me.
i hardly ever edit anything i write, short of research papers. poetry and short stories or what have you are always first draft = final draft. i feel that it's more pure that way, that the emotion is unadulterated in your first attempt at literary expression. if you sit around trying to 'fix' it, it loses some of its original power, because instead of focusing on the content and the levels of emotion tied into everything, you are too busy trying to think of fancy words to beef up its appearance.
maybe it's just me, but i think that unedited works of writing hold much more beauty, especially when they are the products of a lengthy, meaningful composure.
i guess i indirectly took his comment as an insult, seeing as how i only write one draft for a piece. i'm not lazy when it comes to my art, i'm a perfectionist. i don't go back and fix things to make it prettier, i put in all my effort as it's being created, sort of editing in my head, trying out a few lines before i write a single word down.
so does lack of editing make art bad, or the artist lazy?

.....or am i just losing my mind?