Log in to post Art News

The Yin and Yang of the Artist’s Ego

It’s hard to know who is learning more in CEPD 190, the Professional Studies course offered in Emily Carr University’s Continuing Studies program – the teacher (me) or the students. Having completed three years and nine terms of teaching, I have learned much more than my students who attend for only one term.

I just finished marking thirty papers by my students, most of who are mature people (I teach in the Continuing Studies program). Their assignment was to write a short explanation of the function display plays in their residence – they were to explain why the things displayed on the walls and shelves were there, focusing on the reason they were displayed, not the items themselves.
When the marking was over, it struck me that no one had referenced the needs of anyone but themselves in addressing the assignment. So I took a piece of paper and I wrote me at the top of one column, and viewer on the top of the other and started to re-read the thirty artist statements submitted earlier in the term by the same students. Under the “me” column, I put a check every time I read words such as me, I, or my, and under viewer column I put a check every time the writer/artist referenced those of us for whom, presumably, the work was created – their patrons, customers and viewers. Final score: 87 versus 2.
There were 87 self-references and the statistic is a dramatic illustration of one of my greatest challenges of teaching CEPD 190: getting the consciousness and understanding of artists out of self and into the minds, hearts and souls of the people who they want to see and buy their work.
I ran an art gallery for several years and organized several exhibitions independently during my career. Consequently, I spent a lot of time reading cover letters, artist statements, biographies and resumes from artists seeking my cooperation. As with the recent assignments, all the text screamed: me, me, me. Rarely did an applicant address my needs or demonstrate an awareness of my needs or objectives.
Think about it. I know a couple of people who love to talk about themselves but rarely ask anything about me when we are together. I find these acquaintances highly stimulating but they are not people to whom I would turn for emotional support. Also, when playing the dating game, shouldn’t a red flag go up when your date only talks about him and never asks anything about you? It’s the same thing when artists deliver an “egolog.”
The yang of our profession as visual artists, is that our ego plays a fundamental role in the creation process; the yin requires that we be the customer and ego free to be effective when marketing. We must be able to turn our ego off and on. Trouble often happens, however, when we have to approach the gatekeepers of our profession – curators, gallery owners, and grant or residency officers. On these occasions we understandably become focused on ourselves because we are excited, nervous, hopeful and aware of the competitive nature of the process in which we are engaged.
But the artist who earns the interest and respect of people in authority is the artist who brings the other party into the conversation. I often cringe when I hear artists explain at length about themselves and their art when they are asked, “What is that about?” It is the artist who wisely turns the question back on the questioner who earns my admiration, asking the questioner: “What do you think it is about?” Then you aim to sincerely find a way to praise whatever is said.
Our conduct with galleries, website designers and other service providers also requires of us that we contain our egos. On a blog I follow, the hosts posted a fairly scathing generalization about artist websites that riled many artist subscribers, but the deluge of agreement from service providers was telling. Here is a comment from a designer working with a large graphic design firm:
“…Aside from the bad aesthetic and bad internet manners, [artists are] lousy as customers – a lot of micro-managing, obsessive-compulsive attention to every unimportant detail, fickleness, and of course the lack of ability to pay for any of the work…. I learned these lessons long ago and don’t service many artists anymore. Unless they pay in advance and have a day job.”
OK, that’s not you. Perhaps you are more on the other end of the ego spectrum – one aspect of personality that is prevalent in the visual arts world is the absence of a healthy ego. When it comes to being appropriately and compellingly persuasive with gatekeepers and customers, you will sell yourself short if you demure when self-assertion is necessary. You must be able to be your own champion at the right time and in the right language.
A thoughtful balancing of the ego yin and yang is a professional requirement of successful visual artists. At least be conscious of the wisdom of being able to turn your ego on and off to best serve your career.

Comments

enjoyed your yin yan concept, reminds me of my "friends"?.
did you purposely just refer to "Him" and why not him or her when on a date?.
I am going to try to paint an abstract and see if anyone ask where I was going with it, but on second thoughts I think that is out of my league.

Iook forward to you issue letters
Happy new year
to all at opus
Margaret Stewart

I just turned 54 and have been an actor and writer in Vancouver for over 25 years. When I was very young I discovered that I had the talent to draw. I've always been able to draw and yet have not pursued it. This, to me, is the result of a destructive ego that I've been working on for the last 7 or 8 years.
Very recently I began drawing again and I was quite surprised at the quality of my portraits. The key to me is acknowledging that "I" don't own the talent. There is no "me" when I create. My ability to create is simply a gift from the universe that flows through me.
I now see that the gift was given to me at a very early age and that my ego refused the gift.
Maybe other artists might see their talents differently if they treated themselves as simply conduits through which the universe expresses joy and love for all. Once you remove yourself and don't try to take credit for a talent bestowed upon you, you might then treat your talent or skill as a gift to be offered to others.

Beautifully written!

I have been working on 'allowing' the Creative Source or the Universe to work through me in my painting life as well. Removing the 'me' in the act of creating is a challenge, but the more cognizant I become of this—and therefore, more present—the better my work and the more joy I cultivate in my daily life.

Thank you for posting this wonderful reminder.

ok, i understand what you are pointing at. i too facilitate learning with others and see your frustration. i am thinking it reflects on the exuberance of youth or life experience or possibly a lack thereof, insights gained through extreme means of trauma or high ideals, immaturity or even vacuums, to which we feel the need to express or to share that with others. in our self-centered-ness we act like we are the only one who has insight into the human condition (because it's happening to me...). on the one hand, i don't agree with the need to tame the ego of those who are expressive creatives, whereby the ego is the underpinning of their expression. this is what makes them (us) do what they (we) do. on the other hand i have known that working creatively with others allows me to be greater than myself and create something more than i could have of my own volition. this rift actually exists in each of us as a crisis of self-identity as individuals in contrast to the collective with whom we must reconcile, and the society in which we exist, except by some divine intervention or self-assertion that can keep us magically elite and separate. maybe those who achieve this level of self-expression deserve some reward for having the ego to accomplish what they do. so, i believe that we first and foremost create for ourselves, exploring our personal depths, possibly reflecting on the collective, or the expanse of the universe, but maybe not, maybe we repeat the mediocre mundane 'f' word to infinity, only to bring our expression into the world to "suffer the slings and arrows" of an already well written shakespearian epic. so why should we even attempt to create anything more than has already been perfected? because shakespeare is shakespeare and until it happens to us, we don't really connect with the experience. each work of art has the potential to transfer something viscerally inherent in its context about when it was created. in every work there is potential for transference of experience or knowledge, but what you ask is more to do with wisdom, which is a whole other level of consciousness, that is beyond our personal point of view or simple experience. it's a paradox, this thing of creation and self-awareness... when i was young i thought i had nothing to say. now that i have something from life experience to share, i think i may never have the time to wholly convey what that entails. is it not in our nature as our baser selves to be split and separate? then in our higher consciousness, our journey becomes to "re-member" that source from whence we came.

thanks for sharing your insights.
luke

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.