Aplomb
Reportedly, an influential Chelsea art dealer was asked once what characteristic she felt separated the artists who would feature prominently in the history books and those who would be lucky to be footnotes. Representing several who’ve already entered the history books, she responded that the ones who make it, wake up everyday, look themselves in the mirror, and say “I’m the best fucking artist in the world” before heading off to their studios.
Mind you, the heading off to their studios is no small part of their success, but the belief in the importance of their work is something I’m beginning to believe might be crucial to that level of success as well.
I did a studio visit with a young artist the other day who told me point blank that he believes he’s the best, in the world, at doing what he does. He told me that in all earnestness. Not knowing of anyone better than he is, I paused a moment, thought it over, and then concluded to myself “Good for you. Right you are to assert that. Why the hell not?” I mumbled something of the same sort to him a moment later.
I’ve retold that exchange to a number of people since and received the same embarrassed response almost uniformly---one that suggested the young artist was wrong to be so immodest. I must admit, I was initially a bit taken back by his confidence in the matter. Had I known of better artists in that medium (and admittedly, I haven’t compared them all, but…) I might have ---gently---questioned had he seen the work of “so-and-so,” but I honestly couldn’t. So, despite my Mid-Western aversion to such aplomb, I've concluded he was correct to say so.
In all honesty, it was exhilarating to think he was right. But it’s got me to wondering about the so-called virtue of being a bit more modest (something they teach where I grew up) or whether there are limits to modesty, especially when what’s at stake are the very limited lines in the next revision of the art history texts.
One advantage to being more modest might be that you’re not, by essentially tossing down the gauntlet, inviting the rest of the world’s artists to a duel of sorts. Defending such a statement from those who’ll see it a direct challenge might distract from precious studio time. Then again, studio time is the only way to confirm it, so perhaps that’s a good motivational trick.
Another benefit to being more modest is the cover it provides should you be sorely mistaken in your privately held assessment. For this and other reasons, conventional wisdom says it’s better to let others declare you the “world’s best,” but as competitive as the art world is, even if others think that, they’re not always willing to admit it. And isn’t false modesty an obnoxious, duplicitous form of pride anyway?
I guess what I’m trying to work out with all this is whether the influential dealer is right. Does it require a fairly large ego to overcome the obstacles to becoming an art historically important artist? Or is it simpler than that? Does it require you convincing yourself that the sacrifices will pay off one day, hence the need for the mirror? Or is it even simpler yet? Someone has to be the best. If a particular individual is, then wouldn’t he/she be the best judge of that?
Mind you, the heading off to their studios is no small part of their success, but the belief in the importance of their work is something I’m beginning to believe might be crucial to that level of success as well.
I did a studio visit with a young artist the other day who told me point blank that he believes he’s the best, in the world, at doing what he does. He told me that in all earnestness. Not knowing of anyone better than he is, I paused a moment, thought it over, and then concluded to myself “Good for you. Right you are to assert that. Why the hell not?” I mumbled something of the same sort to him a moment later.
I’ve retold that exchange to a number of people since and received the same embarrassed response almost uniformly---one that suggested the young artist was wrong to be so immodest. I must admit, I was initially a bit taken back by his confidence in the matter. Had I known of better artists in that medium (and admittedly, I haven’t compared them all, but…) I might have ---gently---questioned had he seen the work of “so-and-so,” but I honestly couldn’t. So, despite my Mid-Western aversion to such aplomb, I've concluded he was correct to say so.
In all honesty, it was exhilarating to think he was right. But it’s got me to wondering about the so-called virtue of being a bit more modest (something they teach where I grew up) or whether there are limits to modesty, especially when what’s at stake are the very limited lines in the next revision of the art history texts.
One advantage to being more modest might be that you’re not, by essentially tossing down the gauntlet, inviting the rest of the world’s artists to a duel of sorts. Defending such a statement from those who’ll see it a direct challenge might distract from precious studio time. Then again, studio time is the only way to confirm it, so perhaps that’s a good motivational trick.
Another benefit to being more modest is the cover it provides should you be sorely mistaken in your privately held assessment. For this and other reasons, conventional wisdom says it’s better to let others declare you the “world’s best,” but as competitive as the art world is, even if others think that, they’re not always willing to admit it. And isn’t false modesty an obnoxious, duplicitous form of pride anyway?
I guess what I’m trying to work out with all this is whether the influential dealer is right. Does it require a fairly large ego to overcome the obstacles to becoming an art historically important artist? Or is it simpler than that? Does it require you convincing yourself that the sacrifices will pay off one day, hence the need for the mirror? Or is it even simpler yet? Someone has to be the best. If a particular individual is, then wouldn’t he/she be the best judge of that?
posted by Edward_ at
7:28 AM
53 Comments:
the ones who make it, wake up everyday, look themselves in the mirror, and say “I’m the best fucking artist in the world” before heading off to their studios.
Quoting Hungry Hyaena quoting Emily Nussbaum, "For so many artists, the act of creativity is intended as a Napoleonic imposition of one's uniqueness upon the universe." Although I suspect that the gallerist you mentioned, and Ms. Nussbaum as well, are mostly correct, it sounds like as good a reason as any to throw away one's art history books and start reading something else.
The most expensive? Yes. Easy.
The best? It only happens in novels and press releases. A group, yes.... never to (or just) an individual.
it sounds like as good a reason as any to throw away one's art history books and start reading something else.
As cute as that is (really, it made me laugh out loud)...I don't think ignoring art history (or any history) will ulimately serve anyone well. I'll agree that it sounds like as good a reason as any to read any art history book with a healthy dose of scepticism, but...
It seems like there are far too many variables to say anything is the "best" - today's best might be tomorrow's completely irrelevant. You certainly can find lots of examples of that historically.
Better to set that piece of ego aside and try to make the work the best that can come out of your studio. That's about the only kind of "best" you could reasonably assess.
Strongly asserting that the work is relevant is a case the artist should try to make, and could have a chance of rationally arguing. But best? It doesn't make any sense to me.
I don't see how any artist that doesn't believe she's the best at least 75% of the time can even become a footnote...
I agree with marc above. Also, I always think it's strange that people (artists, dealers, curators, anyone) assume they know the work of every artist worth knowing. There could be someone working in a small town somewhere, or a small country, in their kitchen at night, or in a mental hospital, someone who doesn't have access (or doesn't seek access) to the art world, who is making incredible work that will knock everyone's socks off if and when it is seen. It's perhaps unlikely, but possible. Going to openings, getting to know other artists, generally being part of the art world is a good strategy to get your work known, but it doesn't necessarily make your work better than someone who doesn't do that.
Believing you are the best is an essential part of becoming successful. When you simply tell folks you are the best at what you do, people start to buy into it. This is not only true for artists, but other professions as well. Muhammad Ali proclaimed himself The Greatest. Michael Jackson claimed to be the King of Pop. Howard Stern crowned himself the King of all Media. Crown yourself King, and soon people will believe it's true. Of course you have to have the skills to back up such claims, but believing you are the best is a good place to start.
I wonder if you pressed this artist for his assesment of other aspects of his life if he would be as immodest. He may agree that he is a lousy friend, lover, father, son, cook, singer, whatever. So perhaps his aplomb is specific to his art only? If that is the case, is he really being immodest or just super confident about that one aspect of his life, a reflection of his passion?
I wonder too if stating such a thing (as opposed to simply believing it) isnt calculated. Like maybe he heard about that same Chelsea dealer's statement and decides to put that out there whenever a dealer walks into the studio. Who knows? But it is interesting because on some level, becoming really good at something involves confidence in that activity or product but ALSO involves some level of self-criticality- to honestly say to yourself you are screwing up and fixing it. Also, If you are the best at 20, 30, 50 where is the insentive to CONTINUE? Is it to just envelop others in the glow of your greatness? Wont things become stale? And that makes me think that if the work is truly excellent, this artist IS the best at clarity of focus, adaptability, discipline, nimbleness of mind, etc.
I am the world’s best artist making black and white photographs of toys and dolls using extreme bleaching, painting and drawing on paper negatives and photocopies as negatives. I know deep down in my heart that this is true and I say it to myself and anyone else who cares to listen every day – and now I find out this will guarantee me in a place in the art history cannon? Great!
My point being that the artist you are talking about Edward, must have been doing something pretty specific for him to be able to claim that he was the best and for you to be unable to think of anyone else doing the same thing who was as good.
It’s obvious that a big ego is often part of being a successful artist. But I know ‘unsuccessful’ artists who have big egos too. I think the most important factor determining if you will end up in the art history books is if your work influences artists who come after you.
ugh. Isn't it enough to believe in yourself by making the commitment to be in your studio? You have to believe in yourself to get in there everyday. Also it seems like a particularly male statement. I know PLENTY of male artists (of questionable talent and skill) who would say they are the best. It's just silly and, I think, unimportant. What makes it into the history books is often based on biase anyway. I don't trust that as a qualification for excellence.
Continuing on anon 10:52's point above, don't the history books get revised periodically and people who were in favor fall out and vice versa?
another anon
Let me restate my central focus here: Does believing you're the best help one have a successful career as an artist? Is the competition so tough, that only those who do believe in themselves that much make it?
I don't think it's a particularly male thing to be that ambitious either. Think Madonna.
I don't like the choice here:
Either I ignore the privilege that I hold in this world, and blindly believe that it is because I have genius to offer (more than someone else) that I am an artist
or
I join the undistinguished rank and file
Doesn't this all have to with the fact that it art has become hip?
Uh, whatever happened to
"I Am The Best Artist" Ben ?
(A bit of old SoHo grafitti)
I've observed that the very confident become successful earlier than the more modest. That bravado inspires gallerists to take a chance. But the more modest tend to create more thoughtful work. And thoughtful work takes more time to gestate.
Cezanne would alternate between thinking he was a genius and thinking he was a fraud. His attitude is fairly familiar - when I'm working on a new body of work, they are fabulous, best ever. A year later, maybe not so much. Creativity without self doubt is suspect, at least to me.
There is a popular program going around called, The Secret, an EST spin off kind of. If you set your mind to something, believe it, then it will be. I believe it's quite possible. The I'm the greatest, ego driven version can be boring, unless it's, Ali, he truely was/is the greatest. http://www.thesecret.tv/
Art is a subjective endeavor, so, further to James Wolanin's point above, part of achieving success as an artist is to influence peoples' subjectivity. This is perfectly demonstrated by Edward's statement in the original post:
In all honesty, it was exhilarating to think he was right.
Exactly. This exhilaration helps sell both the artist and the art. Everyone wants to be associated with a winner, and in a subjective world like art, where other peoples' opinions can be important, you may as well start the opinion-snowball going with a big push yourself.
To Anon @ 10:56:53, of course we can never know whom History will Select beforehand, but you can't be Selected if you don't get on stage. History itself is subjectve to a certain degree, so if you get people to talk about you over a long period of time, then you become historically important if for no other reason than you have a lot of references. You might still get forgotten with time, but at least you've got a good historical resume to start on.
Or you could follow the approach of Henry Darger.
This makes me think of all those delusional American Idol contestants - there is a big difference between mature confidence and "living in the mist."
Even the concept of being the "Best" at something like art seems a little juvenile. While it does take perseverance and tenacity to make it in this world, delusions are never productive.
I hope the cloud he lives within is a beautiful color - because it is pretty thick.
I can't resist: anyone remember Duchamp's essay "The Creative Act"?? here's a snippet:
[...] Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity.
In the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History.
I know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse this mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act - yet, art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work of art thorough considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist.
If the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions toward himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgment of his own work, how can one describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator to react critically to the work of art? In other words, how does this reaction come about? [...]
Muhammed Ali's bravura was matched by his being one of the greatest practitioners of the Sweet Science, measurable in guys lying down on the mat semi-conscious. Believing you're the best may help your art career, but from the standpoint of art making it's a delusional attitude. There's also some evidence that the whole self-esteem thing is bunk.
Some thoughts I have on this subject, based on working with artists:
I hate it when artists couch everything they do in self-deprecating hooey. It looks fake, and it looks like they are very self-consciously covering up their gigantic ego. When working with an overly self-deprecating artist, I tend to keep my guard up because at the worst possible moment that nasty ego they've been hiding is going to rear its ugly head. This scenario tends to play itself out regularly.
Confidence, on the other hand, is not just really attractive. It's easy to trust. I have been screwed way more times by "modest" artists than I have by confident artists. Confident artists can take care of themselves, can take it when you set a boundary, and tend to be operating above-board.
So I tend to see confidence as being less about ego than self-deprecating behavior that is often referred to as "modesty."
"I am the best" egomaniacal behavior is, in my experience, a lot like that self-deprecating behavior. It's a mental script the artist is using to manage their ego. I think it's just as potentially harmful.
I think, in light of these definitions, that it is entirely possible to be extremely confident about one's work and have a great deal of humility or modesty (which I would define as a basic understanding that the world does not revolve around oneself) at the same time.
Well,
Let's try programmative writting:
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
I'm the best artist in the world.
Ask me again in 3 years, we'll see if that worked out, ok?
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
Fisher:
>>>>>When working with an overly self-deprecating artist, I tend to keep my guard up
I agree. I mean, one is allowed to doubt, but...Come back when you're ready.
That's the one thing I expect from me, to be "ready". To not present half-assed stuff.
To stand up to what I do even if it means failure.
I mean, it's all exploration isn't it?
Personally I want to make my art remarkable. Not for others, but for me.
That's nothing to do with pretention and all to do with the challenge of art.
I doubt all the time, but I keep it to myself. That artist who said to
Edward that he is the best is wrong, because you can always be better.
But the important is that when you launch your stuff, you must be ready for it.
If you don't feel ready than work that out. Work until you feel ready.
I think that's pretty simple,
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
I think believing you're the best would actually dampen the fire in the belly. If you're the best, what do you have left to strive for?
Much better, I think, is to believe that you're making interesting/good work and that you have the potential to reach new heights in your art-making.
It sounds like a number of us are talking about two different things - what you need to tell yourself in the studio, and what you need to tell the world when you're trying to get the artwork out of the studio.
The influential Chelsea art dealer says that the artists that are going to be remembered approach making their work with the idea that they are "the best fucking artist in the world". My guess is that if you actually could numb your critical senses to that degree when making the work, you'd quickly start making pretty awful stuff. Unless you are, I guess, the one and only best fucking artist in the world.
Now, for the artist to confront the studio visitor with the statement "I'm the best" is really quite different. Here the artist is no longer in producer mode and is in getting it out into the conversation/world mode. Maybe "I'm the greatest" is a good way to get the attention the work needs. I just don't think it's the best place to make the work. I think it would lead too quickly to "so that's good enough".
About entering history books.
I really doubt one gallerist can represent that many important artists.
What I mean is that there is a difference between:
- artists that the gallerist and the direct circle of Chelsea New York (and local journalists) think are important. Chelsea is a very concentrated world, people. Try ask anyone in New Delhi if they heard of you. Example: there might be one minimalist who will be strongly remembered as the quintessance of the movement, but Chelsea seems to believe everyone one of them are huge stars. Like if everyone across the world had seen huge retros of Fred Sanback. It's pretty exaggerate on that level, how artists how promoted as important by their gallerists.
- artists who are known enough that "general" people in many large cities across different countries might have stumbled unto a work or exhibit of them. These actually enter history books, but while any art aficonado remembers their names, the average people don't talk about them at every dinners.
- artists who become part of the social conscious (Van Gogh, Warhol, etc..).
I don't think that all the artists we talk about today will be remembered in 100 years except a very few. When you talk about history books they are many levels of knowledge, so wrether you mean connoissorship knowledge or popular knowledge is to me an important nuance.
Who cares that Donald Kuspit can debate Sean Scully with Jerry Saltz if the average people don't care. Sean who ????? The artworld people are sometimes caught up in their own bubbles and dellusions about their actual impact and importance on the world.
So all this said, I would need to have that list of self-appreciative artists from that gallerist before gobbing any substance about this issue.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
(any french here know the translation of "gobber" ? I doubt that gobbing exists. I put it cos I like it.. Gobbing...like a fish that goes "gob gob gob"..swallowing all on its way..)
About entering history books.
I really doubt one gallerist can represent that many important artists.
What I mean is that there is a difference between:
- artists that the gallerist and the direct circle of Chelsea New York (and local journalists) think are important. Chelsea is a very concentrated world, people. Try ask anyone in New Delhi if they heard of you. Example: there might be one minimalist who will be strongly remembered as the quintessance of the movement, but Chelsea seems to believe everyone one of them are huge stars. Like if everyone across the world had seen huge retros of Fred Sanback. It's pretty exaggerate on that level, how artists how promoted as important by their gallerists.
- artists who are known enough that "general" people in many large cities across different countries might have stumbled unto a work or exhibit of them. These actually enter history books, but while any art aficonado remembers their names, the average people don't talk about them at every dinners.
- artists who become part of the social conscious (Van Gogh, Warhol, etc..).
I don't think that all the artists we talk about today will be remembered in 100 years except a very few. When you talk about history books they are many levels of knowledge, so wrether you mean connoissorship knowledge or popular knowledge is to me an important nuance.
Who cares that Donald Kuspit can debate Sean Scully with Jerry Saltz if the average people don't care. Sean who ????? The artworld people are sometimes caught up in their own bubbles and dellusions about their actual impact and importance on the world.
So all this said, I would need to have that list of self-appreciative artists from that gallerist before gobbing any substance about this issue.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
(any french here know the translation of "gobber" ? I doubt that gobbing exists. I put it cos I like it.. Gobbing...like a fish that goes "gob gob gob"..swallowing all on its way..)
Sorry about double post.
And I forgot Ambroise Vollard or Iris Clert but the situation is different now with how things have expanded.
They can only be a couple Ambroise Vollard, so that's probably Gagosian and Goodman, or I'll let you decide. But those represent so many artists that you are lucky to see an exhibit from one of them in 7 years.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
PS: Correction above: It's pretty exaggerate on that level, how artists are promoted as important by their gallerists.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well are we talking about just the shock effect of actually proclaiming that out loud to all that hear?
I was thinking about people I've known who have proclaimed that...out loud.
(after all, even if one tends to think that now and again-to SAY it, proclaim it, is almost shocking)
The funny thing is-- I don't know where they are anymore, the proclaimers of "I'm the best fucking artist and will make history" ...they just simply disappeared. Or maybe backed off when they saw that ambition was not acknowledged by society at large.
But to proclaim it is just another grad school marketing trick. Lame.
But to proclaim it is just another grad school marketing trick. Lame.
who did that?
I think fisher made a good point. What works best is honesty. Pretending to be what you think the gallerist wants is a recipe for disaster.
Bragging can be great shtick: Fonzi, Andrew "Dice" Clay, Burt Reynolds.
Keeping it up requires increasingly impressive feats, leading to the inevitable shark-jump with its concomitant loss of credit.
Still was an egotist to the core. Pollock expressed grave doubts throughout his career. The ego level of significant artists seems all over the map, historically speaking.
Is this an era where only braggarts rule? I hope not, but could be.
MARC: There is a popular program going around called, The Secret, an EST spin off kind of. If you set your mind to something, believe it, then it will be.
Yes, this is just the sort of thinking that got us into Iraq...Only time will tell
What Heidi spoke of happened to me alot, especially in the years I lived in NYC. I often met male artists (and I am sorry, but not one female who said this...) who told me right up front that they were a genius. "No, really, I am..." said adamantly. And I do not know where they are anymore, or what happened to them.
Hi Edward!
I wrote:
But to proclaim it is just another grad school marketing trick. Lame.
You wrote:
who did that?
Oh I was referring to that poor soul who you mentioned in the studio visit, and also my own personal experiences with artists at different residencies and back in school. Some people often bragged they would be bigger than *insert hot artist name of the moment* or even *insert old master name here* and acknowledged by all.
It caused quite a commotion, temporary gossip, after all, wasn't that a swipe at all artists within earshot?
To be honest, I was intimidated. I thought Holy crap, what kind of ego would have the nerve to proclaim that out loud ?? And--are they right?
It was funny because then I found myself on some level taking a 2nd and 3rd look at the work they made wondering what they had up the sleeve. Now, they are nowhere to be found.
I hate to think of a new batch thinking they can "out confidence" the next person. I just hope people don't fall for it!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry to hog up the blog, but you asked some good questions...
Does it require a fairly large ego to overcome the obstacles to becoming an art historically important artist?
me: yes, most definitely. But I'm pretty sure Einstein died thinking he failed because he could not figure out how to access the 5th dimension, so it takes different forms.
Does it require you convincing yourself that the sacrifices will pay off one day, hence the need for the mirror?
me: yes to that also. But when i think of the people who proclaimed their own genius/bestness, vs where they are/the art they are doing..I feel kind of embarassed for them. Seriously-they have all disappeared.
Plus it makes me think they are shitty people.
I think that dealer said you wake up and say it to yourself;)
Everyone is the best at what they do, when they do their best! It's as simple as that!
if bragging helps you for that moment, then sure scream it out. You'll loose lots of friends, and you'll make lots of enemies. and you will most certainly deprive yourself the chance to really prove you are the best, because the best are always swallowing their pride, as they understand there is no best--it's all relative.
Desire, thirst, and a strong hand for the better.
My gut reaction to this question?
We do become, vision of imagination...........
so what is missing? In a time of awsome waste, greed and obesity,
maybe we could think more cautiously. And say " I am the best fucking human I can be." And energy,accumulating the time will define the design and hold fast the creation by definition of the sublime. And we have better people, and the best art.
Hate to admit that I watch it, but just watch American Idol, there are plenty of no talents who believe they are the best next big thing. It is absurd to think that a big ego will make you a great artist. In America, it may make you a success, but ultimately that has very little to do with greatness...
You need more than a healthy ego to propel you to make work day in and day out without much reward. But you must also be your own worst critic. Cliches, all, but , I think true enough.
I agree with the poster who warned against false modesty. Bragging and narcissism are more or less loathesome--but better not to be disguising it which adds deception to the mix.
Its all gotta be about the work--and I think most artists--in the act of creativity are in the act of making a proposal that THAT PARTICULAR vision is THE ONLY ONE for the time being. And then they must reject it and move on. Its hard!
hey Edward , take a look at this website : http://www.mrmirzaei.com/ , really an interesting photographer !
History books, from my understanding, were not written by the fairies.
Anonymous,
I'll have a look when I get a chance to focus on it, but I want to discourage folks from using the blog as an introduction to artwork (their own or their friends). There are better means to do so, and doing so here serves as a threadjack.
Thanks for understanding.
e_
History books, from my understanding, were not written by the fairies.
There are a few dozen choice puns in there, but, alas....
Whether someone is the best at anything (in art) is irrelevant. Its whether the artworld can use you, or the world needs/wants what you've got. Duchamp states it clearly in the creative act. This dealer sounds like an amateur pop theorist.
I think it does make sense for artists to think their own work is the best - why would you make anything other than what you think of as the perfect art?
I try to learn to cook the food that I want to eat => I am making the best food (for me)- I try to learn to make the art that i want to live with, which would likewise be the best art for me. Which doesn't mean this is just a personal thing - it is clear to me when you make something in this way other people see it and respond to it as well.
I am talking about making the best work - not being the most successful in terms of fame or finance, which I think is easier, and probably what most people who openly claim to be the best are after.
Maybe that artist Edward met should ne thrown to the lions (meaning, here on this blog).
Let's talk about his art and see. I'm confident enough to feel when I meet a genios, and also when I meet a pertinent one (they are many geniuses who are just out of the loop).
Or maybe he'll be like Dali and say "I'm more intelligent than everyone of you in this room". But you know...Dali made some great paintings but frankly they didn't change the curse of art history.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
Maybe that artist Edward met should ne thrown to the lions (meaning, here on this blog).
Let's talk about his art and see. I'm confident enough to feel when I meet a genios, and also when I meet a pertinent one (they are many geniuses who are just out of the loop).
Or maybe he'll be like Dali and say "I'm more intelligent than everyone of you in this room". But you know...Dali made some great paintings but frankly they didn't change the curse of art history.
Cheers,
Cedric Caspesyan
I have nooo idea what happened this time (double post).
Cedric
the ones who make it, wake up everyday, look themselves in the mirror, and say “I’m the best fucking artist in the world” before heading off to their studios.
Reminds me of the last scene in Boogie Nights.
PS - Is the dealer you quoted sleeping with every one of her artists? How does she know what they say to themselves when they wake up every morning? More likely it's what they're saying to everybody else.
"Someone has to be the best????"
I ask the BEST what? I read your post and I nodded and agreed with most. However, I just have to put my 2 cents in here.
Do you blame this egotistical, "immodest" artist? We live in a day in which celebrity is made through no effort. Instead, notoriety is just a matter of saying it is true. Look at so many Hollywood celebrities. Do you see substance there? I don't. Art celebrity is no different. If you say you are great and you smile for the cameras, I truly believe the media will lead you to success. That doesn’t make it real or right.
I don't think of artists and their work to be a part of a competition or a commodity to be measured against some other product nixed by Consumer Report. Yet just like the late night infomercial, there will be a segment of society to buy into the illusion. So be it.
So just say it: "I AM THE BEST ARTIST!!”
Yeah, right. I wish you well. The sad part of this story is that you probably WILL do well or at least OK! It is just more B.S. We should be accustomed and immune to such drivel by now.
Sheree Rensel
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home