posted
It's interesting how the vast majority of artists are very critical toward their work.
When I started acting in community theaters, I noticed an interesting trend. Every time somebody would congratulate an actor on a great performance, the actor would proceed to tell them exactly what he or she did wrong on stage. While the performance might have been spectacular, the actor would see only the negative. These actors have great talent, but never have had a single performance they are proud of.
My friend is a great artist. He makes fantastic character sketches. However, if he messes up a single line, he gets angry and crushes the page into a ball and flings it into the trash can. He has never been really proud of a drawing.
I know many people who are great writers. They have extreme talent with grammatical structure. They hardly produce much at all though. When I ask to see their work, before I can even read the piece, I'm bombarded with a laundry list of what needs to be fixed. They really haven't written anything they can display proudly.
Why are artists seemingly always their worst critics? I think that a lot of it is that artists are expected to be humble, but there must be more to it. Interestingly, the artists who have had great success aren't necessarily the best at what they do. Sometimes they are downright mediocre. But they have tremendous confidence.
posted
Artists, from my perspective--and I'm only claiming it's mine--are more critical of themselves because they've studied every detail of what they consider to be "the Greats" and, on some level, keep comparing themselves to what they first fell in love with. I got hooked early on with the artwork of Frank Frazetta, Boris Vallejo, Ernie Chan, Fransisco Goya and H. R. Giger. I found that I could stare at a single picture for hours (still can) appreciating the depth, blends, positive and negative usage, dramatic lighting or shadowing and textures.
I don't know if writers (per se) do this the same, but I would venture to guess that it's the root cause of many cliches.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited July 24, 2008).]
posted
I have been doing a lot of University studies in Creativity, Intelligence and Talent and how this applies to artists, being a writer and an actor, along with being a teacher of future writers and actors.
Why are drawing artist so critical of their own work? Because those with Visual Spatial intelligence are the most likely to think that everyone can do what they can do, to not think of their talents as real talents.
Research shows 33% of writers are bipolar, why? Not just becaues we are crazy but being bipolar (clinically or just having a bipolar like cycle) helps writers. Manic stage they write, they write and they write more. Then they sleep, wake up in a depressive stage and edit, edit and edit some more. By the end of a cycle they have a good book. JK Rowling is famous for not only being depressed but creating creatures who cause depression.
If the negativity helps them strive for perfection then it can be important, rather than something to solve.
posted
I don't know about for a visual artist, but for a writer success actually takes a huge amount of self-confidence, if not an overweening ego. Now admittedly for many writers this is interspersed with periods of a complete lack of confidence. But the ego has to be there or the writing never gets out the door.
What most of us here have enough good sense not to say is that we really believe that we are good--maybe better than good at least in potential. Of course, some editor comes along and slaps THAT concept out of us but before long we manage to get the ego back.
posted
An artist knows what their work is supposed to be like. it never comes close.
I just completed a bowl where I carved it into a swirl of leaves. I cut away the parts that were not leaf. It is impressive. I know every error in it what is not what is bad. I know where more work might improve it. It is as done as it will ever be. I don't think I have the skills to improve it more, without ruining it.
When you are never satisfied with your work, you will likely try harder to improve.
posted
I've been a hobbiest in visual art, photography and writing and in each of those endeavors I researched and researched, learning who was great and why.
As a result the contrast between the quality of my work and the quality of the only frame of reference that I have looms large and discouraging. I look at my work and wonder if I can ever get it to a point where I could actually dream of publishing.
With writing however I have the balance of working with other struggling writers of varying success and talent through workshops. This helps me keep going because even the most brilliant stories need a little work when first written.
posted
The same hold true with musicians. Many of the professors at the University I studied music at thought that the musicians were extra critical of their work because when they are learning and getting lessons they are only taught to find the errors. One of the flaws of many of the teaching techniques was in not learning to find what is good. I think the same can be said of writers we only hear what is bad. Sometimes it is helpful to be able to recognize what you do well so you can build on your strength.
Also I think artists are perfectionists. That and in every form of art there is high competition and a lot of opinions.
posted
In at least one way the criticism paradigm reminds me of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes." http://deoxy.org/emperors.htmPosts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
