Comments on: ego.

By: Cian

Cian — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:11:26 +0000

I think, as pretentious as I feel saying it, you have to be your own biggest supporter as well as your own biggest critic. I hardly do any artwork anymore, mainly because I know that I won’t be able to live up to my own standards.

So ego must be a major motivation in the creation of art, otherwise nothing would be created at all because we’d all be sitting around feeling sorry for ourselves.

It would also serve as a “thick skin”. With so many other people critiquing your work, if you have a heap of bad reviews but still go on to be considered a success, it can only be your ego that could force you to continue.

Not sure if I’ve actually answered your questions however. :/

By: phill

phill — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:57:33 +0000

I think the problem with asking a question such as this, is that in most societies there's a dim view taken of someone who thinks they are good at what they do (certainly in Australia, where 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' is a nationally recognised condition). It makes it difficult to separate the stigma of being an insufferably self-promoting, vain 'artist' from the simple act of being proud of what you produce. I think there's also a fine line between believing in yourself and believing that you are greater than others, and that line is sometimes hard to distinguish.

By: K

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:53:48 +0000

Yes, I believe that the “finished” writings I have are good, and are worth reading, and do provide something to those who read it, regardless of who they are. I’m guessing they will get it, in their own way. Down the road, once I manage to have enough works to have a retrospective, as random as it will be, and self-published (by myself or some family foundation) as it is likely to be, I am confident that some college student, some traveller, some housewife, some loner, lover, school skipping teenager, what have you, will find it, and will find value in it, and will find it good. And that will make two – myself, and the reader.

I haven’t published them yet, they are still in progress. These are the short stories.

Poetry, yes, I have produced poetry that I hope somehow, someday, reaches an audience that appreciates it. And yes, it’s more than good enough. This I am already confident in. I just don’t know how to market it, and honestly, I’m not real aggressive with it.

I suppose it’s apparent I have the ego, but only selectively. That probably does not qualify for success when it comes to the old school. But back then they could only afford one parchment per month and they really had to make that parchment count. Not that I make my work count less, but I can afford to stroke my muse a little more. Think about it in terms of latter works of greater artists back then; they faded out a little, because they could afford to stroke around a little bit, so those extra ideas saw daylight. Some were base hits, some were fouls. Sorry for the baseball analogy.

I’m not sure what it means to have “partial” ego. But that does not shake the confidence in the pieces that I know are good. However few they may be. But there will be more. And someday, there may be enough to fill a volume, even if that volume is a damned mish mash of writing styles instead of a novel. Hell, I’ve done it once already with work I already considered shaky just to get it off of my shoulders. Fuck the ego, that’s easy to cater to.

The nagging subconscious – now that’s something you need to cater to and get to sleep.

By: AR

AR — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 03:20:22 +0000

Do you believe that what you produce is good? If so, do you think that others would share that belief?
Most of it, yes, because I will always keep working on a piece until I am satisfied. Or, alternately, I overwork it, and it ends up sucking, but no use obsessing.
Others have shared that belief, so I assume I have some talent and skill.

In essence, do you have what Wilson believes is the necessary ego to become a successful artist? Do you agree that it is indeed necessary?
His examples are awfully convenient and strategic, as Aditi pretty much covers.
I do think a certain measure of ego and vanity goes into making any artist successful, by which I don’t mean in the monetary sense necessarily, but simply accomplishing work that has some quality or greater effect. Van Gogh, as unsuccessful as he was, had enough vanity to decide he wanted to give up preaching for painting. I’ve known plenty of artists and a few writers as professors and friends, and I agree with her that most are not insufferable braggarts. But most have do some measure of vanity and some sensitivity towards their ego. You have to believe that whatever you have to say matters on some level. And yes, you may be humble and full of humility, but odds are if you are creating anything of lasting value, you have some measurable ego.

By: phill

phill — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 03:59:29 +0000

Yes, definitely. Writers and artists can’t exist in a vacuum, as far as publishing and such goes. If you’re writing for your own personal enjoyment and nothing else, then go nuts, write what you want to write and do whatever. But whether they accomplish contact to the ‘outside world’ via an agent, or by just keeping tabs on the industry and their audience, there has to be some awareness maintained by an author aspiring to be published.