Do You Ever Feel Like A Fraud?

Could you expand a bit on your understanding of "a fraud" and "being inauthentic" as it applies to artists/artwork?

Bill Tomsa

https://bill-tomsa.pixels.com

What a day this has become!

First, Hullo RJ.

I would like to say "Nice to see you," except for this cloud that is on your sunshine.

I think that I know what you are saying. I think it has to do with putting on an "Eminence Front" (you know I quote the Who, but I have been returning to this theme of the Eminence Front multiple times over the last several days, and here it is again.) in order to convince the people of what they want to believe in the first place.

There is an archetype of "The Artist" that some people want to buy when they buy an Objet d'art for their Wall d' over d' couch. A story to go with the piece so that they can regale their friends and neighbors and the pizza delivery guy every time they can. They want you to fit into their story that they have prepared in their mind.

You read the story they are constructing and you alter your ego to fit their mantle piece. Then you wonder, "WThigittey HECK? That's not me!"

We're living in a faux world, Eminence Front, it's a put on!

So to answer the question directly, YES, there are times when I know that I am being inauthentic. Except for the one thing.

The Eminence Front? It's still MY Eminence Front. I made that mask. I chose the eyes, I chose the chin. I chose which way to go with him. I managed to fit it into "your" storyline. Maybe you wrote the words, Mr. Playwrite, but I breathed life into the character. I am the person you will be telling the people you met. And I am the one who told the story that is now hanging over your desk in your office. (BTW, this exact thing happened to me today as I was proudly pointing to (Oh BTW BTW, it was YOURS) the painting and telling the story of "You remember Rob Hacunda? This is one of his."

I will have to say that she fairly well dated the work as contrasted to your more recent works.) That is the important authenticity. That is the story that people will be telling themselves as the collectors buzzes about how he communed with "The Artist!" The work speaks for itself. The work is "permanent" while the drama you acted in is temporary.

Sales is not an easy thing to do. PERIOD!

PLAU
UPD

Uther you made me smile

Bill, it can be different per individual , for me it’s more a voice that says I’m irrelevant as the work, it could also be a humbling sense that the work isn’t as good as my image of it might be.. it’s doubt

O.K. I understand better now. Irrelevant, humbling....doubt. I can identify with that coupled with the fact that now, at 72, I can see the end of my life coming in the next decade or two or three or ???

When these feelings start to creep into my thoughts I do my best to get rid of them and one little phrase seems to help me.TRUST THE PROCESS.

Not only as "the process" applies to art making but "the process" of life itself. Without getting religious (as I am not), to me the entire Universe is working in a certain way... hence the process.

I look back on seven decades and can see how the process was working in ways I never could have imagined. Yet, here I am and looking forward to what ever the Universe has in mind for my art/life.

Bill Tomsa

https://bill-tomsa.pixels.com

Well I don't really go crazy about promoting myself or my art work so I would have to say no, plus I don't like the idea of disparaging myself. My art is only one aspect of me and my life and it's all real, with no fraud in it what so over. :-)

Bill, thank you for those wise words,, yes the process . It’s always been about that anyway. I will try to remember that

Mario perhaps I take myself too seriously , I appreciate your insight

Yes, Robert. All the time. Even when people have the work and say they love it

Abbie, sometimes even more so for me., thank you

No, I feel authentic. My relatives, though...Oh well.

Robert, you are definitely the real deal.

Great, great thread, Robert. Uther I loved reading your thoughts ... Bill Tomsa ... bless ya ... I completely understand. I bought a coat two years ago. Spent way too much ... but comforted myself with the idea that it was "my last coat." (It wasn't, as it turned out.)

As to authenticity ... one side of me is a bit of a clown / show-off ... so when someone asks about my photography / art, no humility for me. I just laughing say, heck yeah I'm still at it!!! Google me, Baby!!! I'm everywhere!!! I was in the hospital recently (don't worry, a one-day procedure thing ... I'm fine) ... and had all the nurses and aides pulling me up on their cell phones. I had them convinced I was a famous artist. But ... and it's an important but ... it was all done with lots of laughs and joking ... all clearly in fun. (This was pre-intravenous-gooofy-juice, btw.)

And that's how I usually handle it. I put on the silly-suit and off I go.

It seems to get the job done.

I'm not a fraud. I love what I do and I'm excited about it ... I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

No, but I feel plenty of others are and they've been getting away with it for years :)

Not on my good days. Because my values are chosen based on what I can control. I can't make people like my photography or control what they feel about my photography, so that would be a poor standard or measurement for success. I can, however, make sure I'm putting my best work out there and that is a value I can control. And also all I can ask of myself.

Now, If I lie to myself and put something up for sale, that I know wasn't very good or my best effort, yes I feel like a fraud, but again that's my own measurement. How others perceive it is largely out of my control.

I used to, but not any more. Been around long enough to know I'm at LEAST in the middle of the pack in the world of photographic talent. Nowhere near the bottom and certainly not at the top (except once in a blue moon), but I know I'm not a fraud or a "hack" or any of that other derogatory stuff. I think that's because even 30 years into it, I keep trying to learn and I DO improve (at least I think I do). If people other than your immediate family and friends say your work is good, you should believe them.

I think you're referring to the Imposter Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome. I think a lot of people have it. (I know I do.) It's more of a subconscious thing than a conscious one.

Martha what’s your secret ?

Thanks Tony, come see me for real

Lois, I’m usually okay with it but sometimes I’m over whelmed, whenever I act like a clown I tend to go too far

Dave, I don’t seem to concern myself with others on too deep a level, tho I must confess to envy from time to time

Jason , I think for me it’s like what Jon said, it’s a subconscious thing and it catches me off guard

Mary, I see what you mean but for me it’s internal and not based on what others are doing.. I know it’s a lot of work to be even mediocre

I feel very similar to Lois. I get very excited when I tell people about my art and when they see it and love it I get crazy giddy.

Just this weekend I had a visit from a family member I hadn't seen in 15 years. Before she came to surprise me she googled me and was taken aback by my work. I was so excited that she did that and that she found me with ease and especially that she loved it. She said she wasn't surprised. My whole life I had to express myself in a creative manner and that she was very happy to find I am still doing that in a beautiful way.

I have nothing to feel guilty for IMO. I do what I love and if you don't love it I don't mind. Just don't bother me about it and I won't force it on you. If you love it well... pardon me while I gush.

Leslie, I’ve been accused of being matter of fact about it and on occasion arrogant.

I don’t happen to find the the definition of art / artists all that ambiguous, perhaps because I fit into the classic romantic notion of what that looks like. My anxiety probably stems from the stress of communication, asking myself( am I talking to this person because there interesting or am I talking to them because they might help me or spend money) I don’t feel a fraud as an artist what so ever. I see talking as a commodity and get that feeling when I’m forced to communicate with others that bore me

Hi Suzanne , yes! Although I’m confident in the quality and devotion to my work that voice often says, who gives a damn about it , in the big picture I’m irrelevant

Michael, not sure I
Know how one practices self esteem

Yes uther I was completely blowing smoke up your ars

Robert, I suspect you and I and others on here who hear that inner voice questioning our artistic talent may not have had that confirmation from our parents. My father often came home late in the evening from work when it was bedtime. Although his family life wasn't perfect he did have two parents that seemed to communicate positively about who he was. The bad part was his parents lived in the same house but never spoke to one another after an event early in the marriage. Can you imagine as a child, being the go-between, passing notes from one parent to another because they won't speak directly to one another?!

My mother came from a broken home and had a grandmother who didn't mean it but wasn't nice to her who ruled the household. She asked my mother for her forgiveness on her deathbed. It's like the saying says about love "You can't give out what you don't have."

I do feel a lot better about myself now. I am a work in progress and hear that voice from time to time. I now know it is not relevant to me but it can can have a powerful effect if listened to. I needed someone who could confirm who I was in a loving way. I think you know where I am going with this.

I had no feelings toward anyone or anything. I was broken and seemed beyond fixing. I had a heart condition with a heart of stone. I was harsh and hard in my personality because the love wasn't passed down. I suspect I was very much like my great grandmother as was my grandmother (she was a quiet person but it couldn't hide her issues), mother and sister.

I have feelings now which comes out especially for those who are disadvantaged. It's great to feel the love. I hear you Robert and I think I understand at least in part what you are going through.

I love the ambivalence. Yes, I'm a fraud, but no I am not. Depending on my mindset at the moment, all of the art world is like that. After I look at a large number of artworks, whatever they be, after a long afternoon in a museum looking at masterworks or too much time in a contemporary gallery, at some point, burnout sets in and it all looks like over-hyped BS.....Rembrandt painted all those portrait pictures because he didn't have a camera or the ancient Greeks sculpted all those naked bodies because they were voyeurs or abstract painters did that stuff because they couldn't paint anything real or whatever is the expression of my visual burn-out at that moment.

Sometimes I also like it all.

My stuff is no exception to that, except that, in my case, I know that I'm a fraud. I have zero training, little experience, accept no advice, have minimal commitment, could quit at any moment and only look for help on purely technical issues. You just have to take it for what it is. I know a significant number of people who have invested big parts of their time and energy doing art and their fame and fortune is not much greater than mine, so, as these things go, it's all OK by me. If I'm a fraud, so be it, but if you like my pictures enough to hang one in the bathroom, then I'm flattered.

"I don’t happen to find the the definition of art / artists all that ambiguous, perhaps because I fit into the classic romantic notion of what that looks like."

Sure Robert, it is your personal acceptance of what is art and how you are well placed within your chosen definition.

Taking an empathetic approach and considering interviews with Jackson Pollock, artists like Pollock question the legitimacy of their work all the time. This in fact can be interpreted as thinking oneself as a fraud.

The definition of art from The Modern Art Perspective is:

it is an abstraction that entertains or it evokes an emotional response or it communicates or any combination thereof (this is the universal aspect) AND there exists someone who recognizes the universal aspect( this is the existential aspect).

let's compare 2 works:
The Last Supper by Da Vinci and Fountain by Marcel Duchamp
The former work is dependent on the universal aspect of the definition of art and the latter depends on the existential aspect. it's dependence on the existential aspect is where the question of fraud arises.

The universal aspect of Da Vinci's Last Supper dominates because most or all of it's independent variables manifest in most or all of those who view it.
The existential aspect of Fountain by Marcel Duchamp dominates for its highly controversial nature for only a small sector of viewers find any universal elements valid. This very well could induce an air of fraudulent representation thus exacerbating its dependency of the existential aspect.

Never, I've lived the life. Back in the day when I was involved in the gallery scene people immediately knew I was an artist without asking or me saying anything.

Drew, in the case of pollock all the attention he received for his work may have challenged his self image in relationship to validity . I would imagine like most stars.. will get back to the rest of your statement later, I’m in the run

By the way the definition of art and artist that I feel I fit into is that of the working artist. Meaning I work full-time at painting And barely Earn a humble existence I by no means see myself as a star

Once you start doubting your authenticity then everyone else will too. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cathey, so true and I can read it on them and it only makes it worse

"Once you start doubting your authenticity then everyone else will too." - No sarcasm intended, but what IS authentic?

Doug, good question and perhaps even more complex than artist..

Kathy, they see me coming a mile a way as well

Doug, authentic-of undisputed origin, representing ones true nature not copied ..

But we all copy most of what we do. It might not be an outright clone, but nobody invents more than a tiny piece of the world, especially artists have have to make their art at least somewhat recognizable.

"... representing ones true nature... "

You can't remove the ambiguity by replacing it with more ambiguity.

There is no knowing one's true nature in there is one's own observational bias in the way of one's self observation in the first place.

In the second first place, "One's true nature" implies that there is a "The". There are many "a"s and very few "the"s. It's true in all of nature, but for some reason not me? I am the solitary existence in nature that is a "The" that has ONE True Nature? That is a most un natural thing (there are many things that tie for "most.")

You were right the first time, authentic will be complex. I would suggest staying away from words like "more" in the effort.

PLAU
UPD


Also, I dig the new avatar.

Doug, Bob Dylan said Something to the effect as every song he wrote is a song he heard before missed remembered

Uther not sure what you’re trying to say

I believe he's saying what has been said for millenia; there is no true you to be found.
Looking for it is like trying to bite your own teeth...

"but what IS authentic?" Doug Swanson

"Doug, good question and perhaps even more complex than artist." RJ (which I interpret to mean, the concept of Authenticity will be as hard if not harder than defining the concept of Artist

"authentic-of undisputed origin, representing ones true nature not copied " RJ

This definition is only valuable if the concept of "One's True Nature" is definable. Which it is not. Therefore you have replaced one ambiguity with another. (You, or whoever wrote the cited definition.)

Joe Burgess is essentially correct.

My issue is with the word "The." I'm not big on absolutism. It has its place, but not here. We all recognize the concept of the duality. The fact that we can hold diametrically opposed ideas as though they are fact even though if one is fact, the other one can't be. We know this and yet we persist to hold them.

Is it possible that I am wrong? In the universe that is infinite, it is absolutely certain that I am wrong (Although I don't know what the physics looks like in the iteration) In this universe, however, there are only examples of "the" in our universe when we enlarge the scope of the set large enough: The living beings. The Earth. Those things contain all of the variables and as such can be called "The" (so far as we know). Or if we shrink it down to the one of these things, (the keyboard, the eggbeater, the president...) and in those cases, we accept that there are oTHErs.

Since we observe the truth of this all around us, it is ______ (fill in the balnk) to assume that we are different.

You were right, it's going to be difficult to define authenticity. I don't suppose that it is impossible... infinity and all... but that effort came up short for the reason outlined.

I don't want to be the guy who figures that asking the question and then knocking down the answer is fair. (I didn't ask the question, but let's not quibble.)

So let me give it a whack.

Authenticity is a clear rendering of the image. The image is derived from that part of the renderer that is outside the ego.

Authenticity is communication devoid of ego.

Well there is less ambiguity there anyway. A proof of this concept is Math. Math is. It doesn't care if you think If A=B and B=C then A+B=C believe it with all your heart, doesn't matter. There is no ego, there is no ambiguity, there is authenticity.

PLAU
UPD

Uther as a visually challenged one liner kinda of writer on a cell phone it will take me some time to respond to your essay

Touching on math, in art therory of 20 th century modern art it was professed that math was the only real truth, however it lacks humanity, not sure exactly what they were trying to say, as far as authentic goes it has its degrees, I see us not so much as dualistic but rather living in conflict and that is were the ego is hard at work.. when I say ego I mean it in the clinical, the character currently at the wheel rather that of the fragile grandiose self, as I sense it’s being used.. it is a valid quest to seek out origin especially through highly concentrated disciplines such as painting and poetry.. I’m not saying it has the ultimate answers but rather it at least asked the questions, questions at least set the sails

It's all about the journey.
Not the destination...

We're talking about the same ego. I gotcha.

Humanity is one thing today and another thing tomorrow. Math is ALWAYS what it is. 1+1= 2 always.

But Math was only brought up the show the exception that proves the rule. Math is about absolutes. Nearly nothing else is.

Absolutely nearly nothing.