Why Creative Success Destroys People
- Thread starter brianvds
- Start date
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,511
Lengthy but well presented. Sadly, this is not a huge surprise.
My take is that most creatives do crave an audience, not necessarily monetary rewards, but the quest can easily have the same results.
The message - the "carrier wave" of the transmission, so to speak in communications theory and engineering - is almost always a version of "I put myself out there, now look at me, see me, hear me, recognize me for what it says about me." IMHO, that's at the heart of so much creative expression, though generalities do obscure outlying cases.
Or maybe I'm just putting myself out there for approval? LOL
My take is that most creatives do crave an audience, not necessarily monetary rewards, but the quest can easily have the same results.
The message - the "carrier wave" of the transmission, so to speak in communications theory and engineering - is almost always a version of "I put myself out there, now look at me, see me, hear me, recognize me for what it says about me." IMHO, that's at the heart of so much creative expression, though generalities do obscure outlying cases.
Or maybe I'm just putting myself out there for approval? LOL
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,244
Yes, it can be a difficult balance to maintain. Even just for commercial success, you need to be at least somewhat known, but the moment you do enjoy commercial success, all the psychological baggage that comes with fame might start to affect you.
I think it's important to have some idea of why exactly you do what you do. Is it really for no other reason than to draw attention and be famous and popular and so on, or do you at least also enjoy what you do so much that you'd keep on doing it even if you lived in obscure poverty?
This phenomenon of celebrities getting destroyed by their own success seems to happen more in some streams than in others. We all know the stereotype of the pop singer or movie star ending in drug addiction and misery, and usually this can be directly traced back to their fame. But how often does this happen to, say, concert pianists, or artists who have successful but not super-famous careers? These are people heavily focused on the craft of what they do, and far less on looking good in public. The problem in a lot of popular music is that much of the artist's success is not just about their musical skills, but about their entire public persona and brand and appearance, all stuff that has zilch to do with music.
Nobody cares in the least what classical or jazz musicians look like (but they care a great deal about what they sound like), whereas one wonders how far Amy Winehouse would have gotten without her trademark "look." And of course, she herself began to wonder more and more about that - did they love her music, or just her appearance, or her glamor, or what? She ended up having no clue who she really was - it might have served her well to retire from public life and only do studio albums, to see whether it was really her voice and music that attracted the audience (my guess is, she would have lost all the toxic fans and retained the ones who actually care about music).
As visual artists we are the lucky ones, because even very famous visual artists are not necessarily very public. E.g. I'm a huge fan of Aron Wiesenfeld, and I have no idea what he looks like and wouldn't recognize him if I saw him in the street. In fields like visual art and writing, it is possible to become very successful without sacrificing your private life, though many writers and artists apparently prefer to also become public personas. In acting and music it's not so easy - you're going to be recognized, and people will do everything from falling on their knees in front of you to throwing things at you. It's no wonder some of them end up cracking up.
And then, for most of us, there is the ever present specter of impostor syndrome - I'm actually no good, and what happens when I'm finally caught out and exposed for the unskilled amateur that I am? It occurred to me the other day that impostor syndrome is actually one more manifestation of our narcissism, because it presupposes that everyone is watching us, when in fact, they're not. Even if you are caught out, it will actually have no effect on anything, because those who can draw and paint better at you, while they are qualified to catch you out, will almost immediately forget about you (how many of us keep on thinking about some bad, bad painting we saw somewhere?), while those who are not as good as you can be laughed off.
Anyway, I think the self-destruction usually happens when people lose sight of why they're in the business to begin with. And alas, many people go into the arts not because they genuinely love music or acting or painting, but simply because they want to be famous. Lucky for them, there are nowadays much easier ways to do it than spend years battling it out with auditions or art courses: just get online and go make a fool of yourself on TikTok.
Bartc
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,511
Brian, yes I do enjoy what I'm doing. It's not just for recognition. But the desire to have an audience does follow along afterwards.Yes, it can be a difficult balance to maintain. Even just for commercial success, you need to be at least somewhat known, but the moment you do enjoy commercial success, all the psychological baggage that comes with fame might start to affect you.
I think it's important to have some idea of why exactly you do what you do. Is it really for no other reason than to draw attention and be famous and popular and so on, or do you at least also enjoy what you do so much that you'd keep on doing it even if you lived in obscure poverty?
This phenomenon of celebrities getting destroyed by their own success seems to happen more in some streams than in others. We all know the stereotype of the pop singer or movie star ending in drug addiction and misery, and usually this can be directly traced back to their fame. But how often does this happen to, say, concert pianists, or artists who have successful but not super-famous careers? These are people heavily focused on the craft of what they do, and far less on looking good in public. The problem in a lot of popular music is that much of the artist's success is not just about their musical skills, but about their entire public persona and brand and appearance, all stuff that has zilch to do with music.
Nobody cares in the least what classical or jazz musicians look like (but they care a great deal about what they sound like), whereas one wonders how far Amy Winehouse would have gotten without her trademark "look." And of course, she herself began to wonder more and more about that - did they love her music, or just her appearance, or her glamor, or what? She ended up having no clue who she really was - it might have served her well to retire from public life and only do studio albums, to see whether it was really her voice and music that attracted the audience (my guess is, she would have lost all the toxic fans and retained the ones who actually care about music).
As visual artists we are the lucky ones, because even very famous visual artists are not necessarily very public. E.g. I'm a huge fan of Aron Wiesenfeld, and I have no idea what he looks like and wouldn't recognize him if I saw him in the street. In fields like visual art and writing, it is possible to become very successful without sacrificing your private life, though many writers and artists apparently prefer to also become public personas. In acting and music it's not so easy - you're going to be recognized, and people will do everything from falling on their knees in front of you to throwing things at you. It's no wonder some of them end up cracking up.
And then, for most of us, there is the ever present specter of impostor syndrome - I'm actually no good, and what happens when I'm finally caught out and exposed for the unskilled amateur that I am? It occurred to me the other day that impostor syndrome is actually one more manifestation of our narcissism, because it presupposes that everyone is watching us, when in fact, they're not. Even if you are caught out, it will actually have no effect on anything, because those who can draw and paint better at you, while they are qualified to catch you out, will almost immediately forget about you (how many of us keep on thinking about some bad, bad painting we saw somewhere?), while those who are not as good as you can be laughed off.
Anyway, I think the self-destruction usually happens when people lose sight of why they're in the business to begin with. And alas, many people go into the arts not because they genuinely love music or acting or painting, but simply because they want to be famous. Lucky for them, there are nowadays much easier ways to do it than spend years battling it out with auditions or art courses: just get online and go make a fool of yourself on TikTok.
If you think about it, you would NEVER hear about those creatives who don't want others to react to their work, so the sampling error is operative here.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,788
Really great words, Brian. You point out a lot of interesting (and true) predicaments, especially about physical "looks." I am from Los Angeles, where that matters even if you are not a creative person. even though a large percentage of people who live in LA are creatives in some way, shape, or form.
I used to play popular music, but I also played jazz and did studio work. It's so true that it doesn't matter what you look like as a jazz or classical musician. Isn't that ridiculous? Maybe, more than the narcissism of musical artists and others, it really shows how physicality matters to the people who come to see you or pay for a record (<--record? That dates me pretty badly). I felt/feel embarrassed when I aged and got unattractive, and was kind of glad I stopped playing in public. I stopped for disability reasons and I'm not glad about that, but being seen in public is/was very difficult. People can be extremely mean.
As a visual (commercial) artist, you have to compete with the young, newly MFA graduates. They are always the hot new thing, but it's not about physical looks. And it's not about the art, either. It's about what kind of attention they get, or can garner, especially on social media and in the galleries, I guess.
I never wanted to be famous as a drummer because of what I looked like. Even when I looked good, I didn't know it or think I was. But I wanted to be the best musician I could possibly be, and yes, I wanted to be seen for it, which was difficult during my time when only good male musicians were recognized as "the best." If you weren't male, no one really took you seriously, especially your fellow musicians. You had to be much, much better than they were to get a little acknowledgement. I know it's been similar in fine art, too, but I've been in both worlds, and while I liked the camaraderie of working with musicians more, they were also harder on each other. Maybe because art is so subjective, and music can be judged in terms of good and bad (a lot of it, anyway).
In art, I already know my work doesn't impress anyone who is also an artist, but they aren't my audience, so I guess I don't care. I care more about accolades, sales, and shows. This is not ideal, but I'm just being honest. I do enjoy finishing artwork; working on it is more torture than enjoyment. I become extremely focused when I work and perfectionistic about what I want the work to look like. I wouldn't call that "enjoyment." It's more about feeling focused and then achieving a sense of accomplishment. I also feel like I can't not make art. Every time I've wanted to quit, I just can't.
Also, I think most people are narcissistic to some degree. It's just a matter of whether it's a healthy amount or you're derranged.
I used to play popular music, but I also played jazz and did studio work. It's so true that it doesn't matter what you look like as a jazz or classical musician. Isn't that ridiculous? Maybe, more than the narcissism of musical artists and others, it really shows how physicality matters to the people who come to see you or pay for a record (<--record? That dates me pretty badly). I felt/feel embarrassed when I aged and got unattractive, and was kind of glad I stopped playing in public. I stopped for disability reasons and I'm not glad about that, but being seen in public is/was very difficult. People can be extremely mean.
As a visual (commercial) artist, you have to compete with the young, newly MFA graduates. They are always the hot new thing, but it's not about physical looks. And it's not about the art, either. It's about what kind of attention they get, or can garner, especially on social media and in the galleries, I guess.
I never wanted to be famous as a drummer because of what I looked like. Even when I looked good, I didn't know it or think I was. But I wanted to be the best musician I could possibly be, and yes, I wanted to be seen for it, which was difficult during my time when only good male musicians were recognized as "the best." If you weren't male, no one really took you seriously, especially your fellow musicians. You had to be much, much better than they were to get a little acknowledgement. I know it's been similar in fine art, too, but I've been in both worlds, and while I liked the camaraderie of working with musicians more, they were also harder on each other. Maybe because art is so subjective, and music can be judged in terms of good and bad (a lot of it, anyway).
In art, I already know my work doesn't impress anyone who is also an artist, but they aren't my audience, so I guess I don't care. I care more about accolades, sales, and shows. This is not ideal, but I'm just being honest. I do enjoy finishing artwork; working on it is more torture than enjoyment. I become extremely focused when I work and perfectionistic about what I want the work to look like. I wouldn't call that "enjoyment." It's more about feeling focused and then achieving a sense of accomplishment. I also feel like I can't not make art. Every time I've wanted to quit, I just can't.
Also, I think most people are narcissistic to some degree. It's just a matter of whether it's a healthy amount or you're derranged.
txomsy
Apprentice of amateur
- Messages
- 195
I think that success does not spoil people. People were already spoiled, success only facilitated it.
One may be the kind of person who'll engage in destructive behavior (e.g. drug addiction) but never get into trouble because one never got enough money for the first dose, or enough attention to feed one's ego, or whatever. Success only means you get more resources at your reach, money, fame, attention, tolerance... what you do with it is up to you.
Just give it a turn round. Say X got into sex, drugs and rock and roll. Count how many other destructive behaviors X didn't go into, but could. If X didn't get into robbery, larceny, assassination, terrorism, supremacism, racism, domination, sexism, rape, discrimination, elitism, avarice, and lots of other trends (and we all know celebrities that went down some of these routes), it was because those didn't appeal to X in the first place. And surely there are many more vices X didn't engage in than weaknesses X did. Why then didn't success promote all vices in X that it does in so many others?
Success only unleashes our own inner daemons. Learn to control your daemons and success won't be such a big deal.
No way I could know, but I would bet that the number of successful people not spoiled by success is much, much more large than those spoiled. Only, if they don't let it affect them, you will never notice them. It's only the ones who fall that we notice.
One may be the kind of person who'll engage in destructive behavior (e.g. drug addiction) but never get into trouble because one never got enough money for the first dose, or enough attention to feed one's ego, or whatever. Success only means you get more resources at your reach, money, fame, attention, tolerance... what you do with it is up to you.
Just give it a turn round. Say X got into sex, drugs and rock and roll. Count how many other destructive behaviors X didn't go into, but could. If X didn't get into robbery, larceny, assassination, terrorism, supremacism, racism, domination, sexism, rape, discrimination, elitism, avarice, and lots of other trends (and we all know celebrities that went down some of these routes), it was because those didn't appeal to X in the first place. And surely there are many more vices X didn't engage in than weaknesses X did. Why then didn't success promote all vices in X that it does in so many others?
Success only unleashes our own inner daemons. Learn to control your daemons and success won't be such a big deal.
No way I could know, but I would bet that the number of successful people not spoiled by success is much, much more large than those spoiled. Only, if they don't let it affect them, you will never notice them. It's only the ones who fall that we notice.
Bongo
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,642
I can identify completely with this part of what Ayin said: (emphasis mine)
"I do enjoy finishing artwork; working on it is more torture than enjoyment. I become extremely focused when I work and perfectionistic about what I want the work to look like. I wouldn't call that "enjoyment." It's more about feeling focused and then achieving a sense of accomplishment."
I paint because I want to see what MY IDEA would look like in paint. IF I don't have an interesting (to me) idea -- I don't paint.
I don't paint for enjoyment, I don't paint for practice or to improve my skills.
I don't paint for fame or fortune, although if by some happenstance it fell in my lap, I can't say I wouldn't go with the flow.
My thrill is coming up with an idea and then seeing it all the way through to a finished product.
I show my work when I can do so without expending much effort or energy. I do so because I'm a human being - a social animal, I like the occasional atta-boy or pat on the head. But that's never my motivation.
"I do enjoy finishing artwork; working on it is more torture than enjoyment. I become extremely focused when I work and perfectionistic about what I want the work to look like. I wouldn't call that "enjoyment." It's more about feeling focused and then achieving a sense of accomplishment."
I paint because I want to see what MY IDEA would look like in paint. IF I don't have an interesting (to me) idea -- I don't paint.
I don't paint for enjoyment, I don't paint for practice or to improve my skills.
I don't paint for fame or fortune, although if by some happenstance it fell in my lap, I can't say I wouldn't go with the flow.
My thrill is coming up with an idea and then seeing it all the way through to a finished product.
I show my work when I can do so without expending much effort or energy. I do so because I'm a human being - a social animal, I like the occasional atta-boy or pat on the head. But that's never my motivation.
OliveOyl
Well-known member
- Messages
- 323
(Ugh. Here this one comes…writing from her bed while still in her jammies and as usual so long-winded but oh well what else is new?) THERE! I said it for you.
So. I’d ask what constitutes “commercial success?” Do fame and fortune always go hand in hand or can you have one without the other? Does success mean making money from sales and if so, how much? What’s the cutoff amount that takes you from failure to success? Are you a success or a failure if you’ve sold one very expensive work and then nothing else? Who needs to grant you fame…the gallerist, the media, the audience or all of them at once and in equal measure? Can you just deem yourself a success? Or when others officially anoint you as a great artistic success, what’s your big reward? Yeah, I have many more questions with no answers. And I’d drive myself even more crazy if my old and tired brain insisted on answering them.
For me, it’s an internal drive to create and a love for that process, and it’s been that way since I was a kid. I went to art school so I could learn more stuff about the only thing I ever really liked doing but I had no expectations that it would lead to anything else. I’ve been accepted into shows and have NOT been accepted into more. I’ve sold a few, have had a solo show, been rejected by galleries, and ripped off by one. I’ve heard good things and bad things but mostly, over the course of all these years of painting, I’ve been ignored. I exist in mediocrity.
There’s a part of me - most of me actually - that’s fine with this. I don’t like talking in front of people, and having to explain, justify or defend what I do. (Writing is easier). Attention embarrass me. I don’t want to invest energy and time into anything that resembles marketing because I’m lazy and have better things to do. I grew up with the king of all criticizers so my skin is like elephant hide…although probably, an unfortunate thing. So hearing praise doesn’t puff up my ego and nor does criticism deflate me. And because all these years of doing yoga, I can easily shush my yammering ego to not think so highly, or so carelessly, about itself/myself. So I’ll keep working every day until my fingers fall off, or until I can’t see or move because this is all I can control. Get up and paint, sleep, get up and paint, sleep, get up and paint, and sleep til death do me part.
I suppose it boils down to me just being some unfeeling robotic art maker chugging along in a dusty corner somewhere. But weirdly, I’m pretty damn happy doing just that, because it’s the fuel that keeps me going. It’s mostly…therapeutic.
Okay, now that I’ve had my morning therapy session with youse, I’m outta bed and into the day….!
So. I’d ask what constitutes “commercial success?” Do fame and fortune always go hand in hand or can you have one without the other? Does success mean making money from sales and if so, how much? What’s the cutoff amount that takes you from failure to success? Are you a success or a failure if you’ve sold one very expensive work and then nothing else? Who needs to grant you fame…the gallerist, the media, the audience or all of them at once and in equal measure? Can you just deem yourself a success? Or when others officially anoint you as a great artistic success, what’s your big reward? Yeah, I have many more questions with no answers. And I’d drive myself even more crazy if my old and tired brain insisted on answering them.
For me, it’s an internal drive to create and a love for that process, and it’s been that way since I was a kid. I went to art school so I could learn more stuff about the only thing I ever really liked doing but I had no expectations that it would lead to anything else. I’ve been accepted into shows and have NOT been accepted into more. I’ve sold a few, have had a solo show, been rejected by galleries, and ripped off by one. I’ve heard good things and bad things but mostly, over the course of all these years of painting, I’ve been ignored. I exist in mediocrity.
There’s a part of me - most of me actually - that’s fine with this. I don’t like talking in front of people, and having to explain, justify or defend what I do. (Writing is easier). Attention embarrass me. I don’t want to invest energy and time into anything that resembles marketing because I’m lazy and have better things to do. I grew up with the king of all criticizers so my skin is like elephant hide…although probably, an unfortunate thing. So hearing praise doesn’t puff up my ego and nor does criticism deflate me. And because all these years of doing yoga, I can easily shush my yammering ego to not think so highly, or so carelessly, about itself/myself. So I’ll keep working every day until my fingers fall off, or until I can’t see or move because this is all I can control. Get up and paint, sleep, get up and paint, sleep, get up and paint, and sleep til death do me part.
I suppose it boils down to me just being some unfeeling robotic art maker chugging along in a dusty corner somewhere. But weirdly, I’m pretty damn happy doing just that, because it’s the fuel that keeps me going. It’s mostly…therapeutic.
Okay, now that I’ve had my morning therapy session with youse, I’m outta bed and into the day….!
