It’s all about me, me, me

Thanks for yesterday's comments folks, which really got me thinking...

Why is ego so important in art nowadays?

Once upon a time, photographic art was something that was commissioned, paid for. Most of the famous painters throughout time were paid to paint, and were directed in what they produced. I guess professional glamour, portrait photography and so forth, would fall under this bracket today. Your client's needs dictate the direction in which the art goes. Effectively the art is produced to a spec, whilst allowing the artist to experiment with his art within those limits.

But what about the humble and invariably destitute art photographer? He doesn’t operate within any limits, only those of his imagination. How fabulous! But he doesn’t get paid either. Do any of you art-nude photographers make a decently monthly sustainable wage from shooting fine-art nudes? No don’t bother answering that. I can hear the cynical laughter from thousands of miles away. Nowadays such commissions are extremely rare.

In these days of the internet-focussed art world, most of today’s art produced by the ordinary average artist doesn’t result in guaranteed payment. Nowadays artists are judged by results, on how good they are. It has a strong psychological element. Artists are expected to express their soul in their art, and they are judged accordingly. Only if a photograph is outstanding not just technically, but also conveys depth, emotion, a message, only then does a photographer stand a hope making the grade of “an artist.” What does this painting of a nude say about the artists intent and motivations? What was he inspired by? What was he feeling when he painted that?

Wow. What incredible pressure. No wonder an artist is nervous about showing his work. If an art critic says that photograph is crap, then it’s not just the image that is crap, it’s like saying the whole of the photographer’s psyche is a failure too. No wonder most photographers are nervous when their work is published. It’s like putting your emotional guts on the firing line. The slightest criticism could result in the poor photographer questioning not only his art, but his worth as a human being too.

Sure, a photographer may say, “I don’t care what you think. This is my vision. I am my work. Everything you need to know about me is in my art. It’s who I am. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it.” And that’s fair enough, and I admire an artist who is mentally strong enough to genuinely feel that. But all too often, it’s just words, and the artist feels crushed and twisted up inside. An artist is only human, and the ego is fragile at the best of times. And there’s the time element too. If a photographer who has spent years of dedication and passion to produce a portfolio of images, and then to have them rejected by potential galleries and slated by critics, or worse still, totally ignored, then it’s enough to make even the most passionate photographer consider quitting and taking up knitting instead.

Of course, the opposite can apply. You can have an artist who is effectively so supremely self confident about his work that it borders on narcissism. Some artists have an inordinate fascination with themselves. Their ego is so bloated that they think they are practically perfect, and derive an almost erotic gratification from admiring their own work. And that’s perfectly wonderful too, IMO. All the self-help books and shrinks in the world teach you to love yourself. And self-love can be great for your art. Make no bones about it, if you are confident that you produce outstanding work, then it is much more likely that you will be able to convince others that’s it’s fabulous too. The most effective marketing tool in the world is self-confidence.

So should we all start buying self-help books and brainwash ourselves into thinking we are all Picasso? Should you sort out your emotional self-doubts, get some therapy, and then this will make you a better artist?

Is it better to have self-love rather than no-love? Arrogance or humility?

There’s no easy answer to these questions. A photographer is not a trained shrink. He can’t be expected to psychoanalyse himself every time he makes a photo, and consider how society will judge him if he shot that nude in that particular way. He shoots an image by way of experimentation, he re-creates the vision that is in his head. If he thought about the feelings and reactions of others all the time, then he’d be so paralysed by fear that he wouldn’t shoot anything at all. Although arguably his self-doubts and fragile ego probably make him a better artist. Angst is a powerful motivator of outstanding art. Humble photographers may well produce better photographs that arrogant ones. Think of all that juicy consuming passion and angst inspiring your art, flowing through it. All that wonderful emotion captured in your work. Mmm…

However, it IS important to keep a balance between self-confidence and self-doubt. Worrying about critics or courting approval of others puts a dangerous amount of power in the hands of your viewers. As Mr Wood so eloquently said in yesterday's comment, "You have the CHOICE to let these negative things weave their way into your life or not."

Fear can paralyse your artistic development. It’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, no matter how good you are. So just be yourself. You are who you are. Forget about everybody else – don’t get distracted by the background noise.

Just get on with doing what you do. The business of creating.

“Painting is a faith, and it imposes the duty to disregard public opinion.”
Vincent van Gogh



Claire-Louisa.