Wednesday, April 06, 2016
Do You Need to Be a Narcissist to Be a Successful Artist?
Big Think: Shameless self-promotion and artistic navel-gazing has gotten a scientific boost from an unexpected source. By comparing signatures in auction house transactions of over 400,000 paintings, researchers found that works by narcissistic artists sold for higher prices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Though I haven’t read the study, based on this article alone, I am still skeptical of the claim. The main thing I’m not sold on is the idea that signature size is such a powerful indicator of narcissism. First of all, are the studies linking signature size to narcissism a strong enough correlation to say big signature= narcissism. Second, I assume the previous research is related to signature size in day to day life, which is a somewhat automatic decision. Artists make a choice about where and how to sign paintings in terms of what they think looks good on the painting. Whatever correlation there is for regular signatures might not translate to signing artwork. Maybe the study took this into account, though based on the article’s description, they determined narcissism based on signature alone. I’d find this claim a lot more convincing if they assessed narcissism based on more than just signatures.
This article didn't really specify any specific evidence or reasoning as to why big signatures equals to narcissism; it just mentioned that signature sizes have been linked to narcissistic personalities since the 1970s, which isn't really scientific. The argument that narcissistic artists did better in terms of getting offered more solo and group exhibitions as well as getting ranked higher makes me wonder if these artists are just confident and present themselves in a confident manner, which is what makes them being viewed as more competent. To me, narcissism implies a very unlikeable and condescending personality, which I do not think is necessary at all for an artist to succeed. You don't have to be narcissistic in order to be confident. Especially in theatre where collaboration is so necessary, I definitely don't think that narcissistic people are more likely to be successful because then no one will like you and no one would want to work with you.
This article brings up a pretty interesting topic that I don't think has a simple right and wrong answer. I am not exactly sure what it takes to be a good artist, but I think that narcissism is not the most definable attribute and can also be contributed to by other variables. For example, I think that as any professional selling their work, you must be confident in your skills. Confidence can be a type of narcissism but I don't think that thinking that you are the best artist to ever live or that no one else can be as good an artist as you is very advantageous in any way to your art. This is why I don't truly agree with the findings of this research. I think that this article does a poor job of presenting the findings of their research in a way that convinces the readers that narcissism is the only reason these artist did better than those who they claim to be not narcissistic. I think that the researchers should have found a better way to define the type of narcissism that they were trying to prove existed in these artist other than a summary of a Greek mythology. this concept is so hard for me to believe because art is something that is unique to everyone. If this article were to explain to me that no other factor affected the sales of these pieces, I wouldn't have as much trouble believing them.
Overall, I think that this is an interesting topic that I think artists today would love to debate and understand more research on the topic, but this article needs to find a better way to present and prove their research is substantial.
I think there is a difference between being a narcissist and being confident in selling yourself. Of course if you're a world famous artist, there could be some narcissism there. That's what happens to a lot of child stars, when you grow surrounded by people telling you you're great you'll believe it, sometimes too much!
I think there is a fine line. Someone who is talented and recognizes that is not a narcissist. I, for example, do commission work and charge 10 dollars an hour on my work. Compared to other artists prices, I am pretty cheap. I know I should be charging more because of how little time I have and how much effort I put in, but I feel guilty when I do so. A narcissistic person would charge much more and not feel that it was extravagant. I don't know where the line is, but I don't think an artist needs to cross it in order to be successful.
I read a chunk of the paper as well as the article citing it, and within it were more interesting things I don't think the article mentioned. For one, they stated that narcissists are more focused on short term gain, thus not focused on building up and looking towards the future, then bringing them down in their lives. So there are some negatives to being an arse.
My problem with this whole thing is that the definition of narcissism is hard to comprehend. What differenciates narcissism from simply promoting yourself and believing in your own work to make it to the top. Yes of course you need self-confidence to market and sell your work, because if you don't believe in it- no one else will either. But I don't think necessarily that narcissism is a requirement to making it. Obviously Picasso had a huge signature, being incredibly famous within his own lifetime, something not a lot of artists get the pleasure of doing. And I don't know if self-promotion and wanting to be noticed for your art are really narcissism.
I don't think that this should promote being a self-righteous asshole, to make it big. Maybe as an artist, but in the world of theater, you can't be. You need to play well with others and meet the goals of others, and not just focus on yourself. Plus, even if you are a superstar, be humble and love and promote yourself, but no one appreicates narcissism really.
Um... No? This is not how narcissism works. This is an over-simplification of humans. Success is not a cause and effect outcome. It's not predictable based on a few simple factors. You cannot predict a person's fate with a simple equation. You cannot determine the price of a painting based upon the size of a signature. There are too many variables. John Hancock signed his name so large on the Declaration of Indepandence as a "screw you" to the British government (he was wanted for smuggling in the UK). Also, Vincent VanGogh's signature is huge in comparison to other artists. Can you really argue that he was narcissistic? The man who suffered from anxiety and other mental illnesses throughout the last several year of his life. The man who died of a "self-inflicted gunshot wound" at the age of 37. He was narcissistic? He was full of himself? This article is not an analysis of the self-love of successful artists. The only thing to be learned here is that if you sign your work is a way that is easily visible, maybe it will sell better. That is, if you're already successful. As far as I understand, the reason that large signatures sell (for famous artists) is because the people who buy the art want to show off their wealth. Van Gogh has an incredibly visible signiature. A buyer an show off the painting as a sign of wealth. His name is immediately recognizable, and everyone knows the value. While a Monet painting has a much less visible signiature. His paintings are identifiable by style, but it could always be an imitation. It's not very useful for showing off.
Well I think that narcissism is a very extreme word. I don't consider myself to be an artists, even though I work in the arts. However, a lot of my very good friends, from college and High school are artists. I think that you do have to be very in touch with yourself to be a successful artists. You have to understand the emotions that you feel and be able to translate them into something that other people can relate to. I don't consider that incredible, and very difficult skill to be narcissism. If we taking acting as an example of being an artists, and we take my best friend who studies musical theater as our case study, I would absolutely stay that her profession involves a lot of thinking, and talking about herself, but it is unfair that we don't talk about how hard that is. It can be very hard to dig into who you are as a person, and every emotion you have ever had and have to use that to do your job well. I can't even imagine it. Narcissism implies that there is joy in showing yourself off, and even an obsession with yourself, but I think being an artist is exactly the opposite of that. You are giving all that you are, physically, mentally and emotionally to your job, and to a cause, and I can not imagine anything more selfless than that.
I don't think that using the size of a signature is really the best measure of narcissism, but I do think that the correlation between signature size and price increase is really interesting. This is all just speculation but personally I view it more as branding, as people want other people to know that what they bought was expensive. If the artist's signature was larger people might be more drawn to it as it would raise those sorts of questions.
In terms of whether or not you need to be narcissistic to be a successful artist I honestly think it depends of how you define narcissism. In order to get your work seen or find jobs you must know how to brand yourself in the most marketable way. You need to be willing to show pride in your work and do a lot of self-promotion. Think of it like a company that's just advertising their product. I wouldn't define that as narcissism, so I don't believe that artists promoting themselves should be considered narcissistic either.
Post a Comment