It has been almost two months since my residency at VSC and already some of my memories are fading. However, I wanted to sum up this series of posts with probably the biggest idea to come from it (not related directly to art production).
The Big Idea
“The Big Idea” certainly sounds dramatic, moreso than it really should. But you’ve continued reading and that’s the important thing. It quickly became very clear to me that one of the benefits of VSC is the diversity of artists in attendance. Some are young, others are old. Some are inexperienced (still in college), some have quite the resume. After attending a couple of slide talks by fellow artists-in-residence, and based on conversations I had in the studio or at meal time, I discovered that many of the artists had no idea where they fit in the hierarchy of resident artists. Further, I realized just how important it is to be aware of your place within the hierarchy. Let’s talk about each of these separately.
Many people don’t like to think this way, but whether we like it or not, some artists are better than others. This becomes evident either in the work itself, the studio practice, the slide talk, or in a number of other ways. All of those factors combined give a sense of the quality of the artist. Based on my interactions with my fellow residents, I came to realize that many of the artists had no idea where they truly fit into the hierarchy (I don’t know this for a fact, just an impression I got). In some cases, artists thought they were much better than they actually were. In other cases, artists thought they were much worse than they actually were. Some, however, knew exactly where they fit in and there was something special about these people regardless if their position was high or low within the hierarchy.
I think the reason why artists don’t understand their place in the hierarchy is because they lack critical self-examination. Perhaps an overrated artist has been boosted by the feedback of their friends. Perhaps an underrated artist lacks the confidence in themselves or their work to feel proud of their accomplishments. I think the artist who overrates themself suffers from the worse of the two afflictions, but an under-confident artist would benefit from a more accurate self-assessment too.
I believe a hierarchy of artists is inevitable and beneficial. It’s present in all life pursuits (sports, business, etc). Art, though, has to be one of the most challenging pursuits in which to understand the hierarchical structure. But by understanding your place in the hierarchy – your relative position to your peers – you can better understand the areas in which you can improve and you have a model for doing so. If you incorrectly place yourself in the top 10% of your peer group, you might miss the opportunities for improvement that you really need. If you incorrectly place yourself in the bottom 10%, you might miss what truly sets yourself apart from your peers so that you can push those things even harder.
Additionally, by understanding your place within the hierarchy, it suggests to me that the artist has a good grasp of what is happening around them. They know what other artists are doing. They know the current trends. They are simply more informed. This isn’t a necessity for all artists to be good, of course, but for those who choose to attend a residency with a large group of their peers, it seems to me to be critical.
Even if you find yourself in the bottom of the hierarchy, your position is not fixed there. With the tools and motivation to rise through the ranks, you can make it happen. And you will recognize your ascension as you do so.
Once this “big idea” came to me, I began looking at the artists around me at VSC and reflecting on my own work. Over the period of four weeks, I ranked myself against my peers and adjusted accordingly with each new bit of information. By the last week I began to look closely at the artists I had positioned above myself. What made them better than me? Did they work harder than me? Were they more focused than me? Were they more experienced than me? Did they have a more creative vision? Were they just born with a huge amount of talent? With such an assessment, what then can I do in my own practice to elevate myself to the level of #1 Bob Q. Artist? Am I willing to do what it takes to improve my work so that my position in the hierarchy is better?
Bringing this idea back to D.C., I’ve begun to evaluate my position in this larger pool of peer artists. Where do I fit in? Am I being recognized accordingly? If not, why not? If so, am I satisfied with it? Furthermore, do I want to consider just D.C. as my pool of peer artists, or the entire world as well?
My ultimate takeaway from this idea is that I have lots of room to improve. While I am somewhat pleased with my current position, I am not satisfied with it. I want to rise through the ranks of the hierarchy.
I’ve got work to do.
This is an insightful article. You never dropped to being petty….there is a wonderful honesty in this article and I commend you for writing it. I shall pass it on.
Aziza – Thanks for the kind words. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Evaluating one’s own performance is not just a problem in art, it’s a problem in everything. It’s called the Lake Wobegon Effect, after Garrison Keillor’s town where “all the children are above average”. Most people think they’re better than average at everything, from driving a car to making love. Obviously not everyone can be above average.
Numerous studies have been done exploring this problem and the current conclusion is, whatever skills it takes to be good at something are also the skills required to detect goodness at that something. So the skill of playing baseball is required, not just for good playing, but also for recognizing good playing. If you’re bad at baseball, not only don’t you realize just how bad you are, you can’t even tell how bad you are compared to others.
Of course this would be worse in the field of art where more objective criteria are hard to come by. I can say I play baseball as well as Alex Rodriguez, but it’s pretty clear when I swing a bat that I’m not. I can say I paint as well as Matisse, but…who can say I don’t? You? What do you know about art? You like [insert name of artist I think is terrible]!
The second part of what you’re talking about I think has to do with improving skills. Getting better at anything requires clear feedback so you can adjust and improve one step at a time. This book I’m currently reading talks about a man who is really good at detecting whether someone is lying. Most people think they’re good at telling that, but studies show most people are really bad at it. What this guy did was set up various controlled experiments where he could check his results immediately. Then he practiced and practiced for years. Most people don’t do this kind of thing.
With art this is very hard for the same reasons ranking yourself is very hard. You have to look at each work of art you create and ask, does this work? If so, why? If not, why not? And then tackle the next one with what works and what doesn’t on your mind. Over and over again.
This is the essence of what Modernism is about, this constant striving for improvement. It makes creating art very painful and difficult, but then mastering any skill is like that.