Most of the time we hear artists spew some crap about "break from the mold, go with your heart, don't care what anyone else thinks of them, independent, dance to the beat of your own drum," all that crap. But if ever an artist tells you they don't care what other people think of them -- they are lying. Simple and honest truth, they are lying, either to you or to themselves.
Artists care VERY, VERY MUCH what other people think of them. Possibly even more so than most people, because artists are most active in their right-brain half, which is the lobe responsible for emotions, romantic notions, passion and feelings, also natural creative talents. So they are hypersensitive to what people think of them. (That’s why they go out of their way to declare that they don't care what people think of them. They know the truth, and they are overcompensating trying too hard to prove to everyone the opposite.)
It is also why they go out of their way and expend quantifiable effort to offend, disgust, and be sensationalistic. For the artist, it is MUCH, MUCH EASIER to be told, "Ohhh I'm sorry your drawing might very well be nice, oh but dearie me, it does not follow the technical guidelines or subject rules for the contest. And therefore it is disqualified on technical grounds. Such as the subject matter or content are not fitting for this category group of art, exhibit or whatever."
For the artist, it is much, much easier to be told that, than to be told, "Well, your drawing followed the technical guidelines, followed the rules of the contest and the wide casting call for people to submit their artwork, and was perfectly suitable -- but it’s just not good enough. And therefore we will not be featuring it."
The first one is much easier to hear than the second. The reason for this is that the first one is not truly a rejection. It is simply a dismissal on technicalities. It is merely a disqualification based on some paperwork grounds of rules, regulations, protocol, stuff like that. Things that artists love to flout and mock. it is not necessarily a commentary on the quality of the artist's work.
Whereas the second one is actually a rejection. The second one truly involves the artist having gone through the effort of creating a piece of work, the artist pouring out its heart and soul, the artist expressing itself, for the sole purpose of being approved and appreciated by the art experts. And then the hypothetical judges disapprove of and reject the artist.
So the artist is launching a preemptive strike. They are disqualifying themselves from the contest or submission-call on purpose so that they can protect their own feelings from being hurt. Another way of stating it is that the artist is hurting the judges before the judges can hurt the artist.
This all unwittingly plays right into the artist’s hands and gives them the green light. Then they can get up on their high horse, they can act all haughty and lofty. This permits them to recite all those rote lines of, “Oh you just don’t like creativity; you're so immature; you’re so afraid to take risks; you’re against self-expression; you're against freedom of speech,” all that crap.
I'm an artist myself so I know how they think.
Artists care VERY, VERY MUCH what other people think of them. Possibly even more so than most people, because artists are most active in their right-brain half, which is the lobe responsible for emotions, romantic notions, passion and feelings, also natural creative talents. So they are hypersensitive to what people think of them. (That’s why they go out of their way to declare that they don't care what people think of them. They know the truth, and they are overcompensating trying too hard to prove to everyone the opposite.)
It is also why they go out of their way and expend quantifiable effort to offend, disgust, and be sensationalistic. For the artist, it is MUCH, MUCH EASIER to be told, "Ohhh I'm sorry your drawing might very well be nice, oh but dearie me, it does not follow the technical guidelines or subject rules for the contest. And therefore it is disqualified on technical grounds. Such as the subject matter or content are not fitting for this category group of art, exhibit or whatever."
For the artist, it is much, much easier to be told that, than to be told, "Well, your drawing followed the technical guidelines, followed the rules of the contest and the wide casting call for people to submit their artwork, and was perfectly suitable -- but it’s just not good enough. And therefore we will not be featuring it."
The first one is much easier to hear than the second. The reason for this is that the first one is not truly a rejection. It is simply a dismissal on technicalities. It is merely a disqualification based on some paperwork grounds of rules, regulations, protocol, stuff like that. Things that artists love to flout and mock. it is not necessarily a commentary on the quality of the artist's work.
Whereas the second one is actually a rejection. The second one truly involves the artist having gone through the effort of creating a piece of work, the artist pouring out its heart and soul, the artist expressing itself, for the sole purpose of being approved and appreciated by the art experts. And then the hypothetical judges disapprove of and reject the artist.
So the artist is launching a preemptive strike. They are disqualifying themselves from the contest or submission-call on purpose so that they can protect their own feelings from being hurt. Another way of stating it is that the artist is hurting the judges before the judges can hurt the artist.
This all unwittingly plays right into the artist’s hands and gives them the green light. Then they can get up on their high horse, they can act all haughty and lofty. This permits them to recite all those rote lines of, “Oh you just don’t like creativity; you're so immature; you’re so afraid to take risks; you’re against self-expression; you're against freedom of speech,” all that crap.
I'm an artist myself so I know how they think.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment