Another very interesting point made in New Media today was the possible necessity to squelch the individual artistic ego in favor of recognition of talent and acknowledgement of one’s own strong and weak points within a group effort.
Very important, yes. But this led me off into other directions to play the Devil’s Advocate (which has always been my wont) in defense of what sometimes is alone the reason for productive creativity. (And, I might add from personal introspection, why it often deserves squelching!)
Are artistic types naturally eccentric and egotistical? Not necessarily. But it is a reputation that holds a grain of truth or such reputation would never have been noticed much less established as a quirk of the species. I think creative people strive to be different, make it as much a part of their personality as of their work. This, plus the desire to be noticed–gain applause, seek center stage, act abashed while coveting awards as much as a simple pat on the head–is, while not a necessary element in any way to creativity or creative talent and success, often serves as the impetus to move forward in the field and open up new paths with swinging scythe.
Need it be held in check in order to work in a team environment? Somehow I don’t believe so. I think that creative people seek out their own. Understand each other. Can maneuver within the criteria to feed each other’s confidence and work well with each member because they understand that what other’s need is exactly what they seek themselves. And I include technicians here as artists–what computer geek is not a little strange to some degree as well. Probably the true egoist is one who does not seek that constant reassurance, because true or false, he believes his work to be superior and above the comments of others. In worst cases, may even denigrate the critical advice as useless and his detractors as idiots.
But in most of us, while we have a strong ego, it needs stroking. I’ve lately noticed the number of excellent writers abandon their weblogs for various reasons, one of which is the lack of feedback, which we’ve all bemoaned. We need an audience, we need the sound of even one hand clapping or we fade off into the sunset either because of self-doubt or disgust at the lack of appreciation. A good dose of healthy ego and confidence–with the necessary dollop of openmindedness, is, I think, a strong asset to a group experience as well as the best place to gain support and honest critique from one’s peers.
A well-functioning group could easily be seen as a mutual admiration society of artists that can both accept critique from their respected peers as well as serve as inspiration to each other. And at the end of a project, when the best they’ve each had to offer has been given, hand in hand across the stage the players can proudly stand in a row and take a bow.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
Your points are well taken, but consider that we’ve only scratched the surface with this issue of collaboration. In later new media courses we will be teaching the element of teamwork in terms of working groups on the models we examined. From developing ideas, determining roles, determing the plan, and holding to a vision. Groups are dynamic and there’s a lot of room for expressive freedom, change, negociation, and argument.
Not to worry. The evaluation sheet I filled out on the course reads like an ad, and strongly suggests that the college consider making New Media an integral part of their program offerings if they want to be a leader in career guidance. When I speak of the course my eyes fairly glow–ask Francena or Carol, or the man on the street.