confidence/arrogance

Fajitas!

Lol! It's not meant to be insulting whatsoever, I was simply stating that kids shouldn't hold you back from making art if you wanted to. You said hats off to whoever did it, why not yourself?

I never once mentioned not wanting you to make money, put food in your kids mouths, nada!

I fail to see the insult I'm afraid. If I said something about your parenting, it'd be a different story altogther.

smelltheglove

The insult is saying my point was arrogant as I stated I dont have time as I have kids.

Again hats off to whoever does, I do not. I never said you did not want me to put food in my kids mouths, that staement is to reitterate my point, the time I have to be away from my kids is time spent to enhance their lives. Maybe one day when I am older I may have time to do it but right now I don't.

I dont see any arrogance AT ALL in the statemtent made and arrogance is a trait I hate so I would love to know what is arrogant about the statement.

Fajitas!

It was hardly an insult, it's a debate - I'm not going to stoop to insulting you

As in, art being something to do if you don't have more important things?

The above quote pointing out what is arrogant in the statement.

Dragan

Well if i could offer you both a 3rd party perspective.... someone saying they don't have "time for that stuff" may be seen as a slight devaluation of what that "stuff" is, especially when the person who read it has an interest in that particular stuff?

I don't think their is too much point in arguing about the different ways different people will want to live their lives and what will make them happy.

When really that all this is, a slight bit of crossed wires?

elven

Ah c'mon now. It comes across a little arrogant to be so dismissive of art because you've got 'more important things to do'. Nobody is saying spending time with your children isn't more important to you. But it came across as quite belittling of something quite a few people find to be very important to them, and also something that people manage to do without actually sacrificing things like spending time with their children, as he tried to point out.

AnCatDubh

Ok, the points and differences expressed by both Smelltheglove and Fajitas! are well made at this point so the thread needs to move on with the debate rather than getting further stymied in the specific of anyone's personal situation.

We note both sides of the opinion expressed so no point or need to revisit.

Thank you.

challengemaster

smelltheglove wrote: »

The insult is saying my point was arrogant as I stated I dont have time as I have kids.

I'd say it's not only arrogant but insulting to people who do spend time at it. As elven put it.

to be so dismissive of art because you've got 'more important things to do'.

What's that say about people who do spend their time at art? They've nothing better to be doing? That it's simply there as an amusement or passtime?

/edit: was already posting before AnCatDubh posted

Covey

Took the words right out of my mouth An Cat Dubh.

Was just about to post

"can ye shower of arrogant B****ds get back on topic" :pac:;)

CabanSail

I have not read this whole thread, just the last few posts.

Great to have a debate about things other than gear for a change

Can we all just read the comments of others & if you find something confronting then stand back for a few moments & reflect on it before posting. I am not having a go at anyone or any particular post here. Having a spirited debate is good but please remember that others may have strong opinions too. I cannot see anything here (that I have read so far) that is intended as an insult. Just remember that when people type we miss out on Body Language & things which when spoken can take on a different context when written. It can also depend on the mood of the reader as to how it's perceived.

In a nutshell .... Can we keep it passionate & civil? Please (with sugar & sparkly things on top )

Anouilh

elven wrote: »

You put across fashion and value as being mutually exclusive though.

This sent me off to find definitions of "merely" as I meant it to be understood. I did not intend it to mean that fashion should be excluded or that "value" should be on a parallel course where it can never coincide with "fashion". Without fashion, most artists would not have any public persona.

Perhaps we are not on the same wavelength at the moment, but I'll certainly look further into how I might write more clearly.

(This is beginning to remind me of one of my English teachers who used roar during tutorials, "SURELY YOU DON'T MEAN THAT!" Ladies with large bags of books used run screaming from the college, not to be seen again for weeks.)

AnCatDubh

To answer the original question, could it be that arrogance is confidence which is perceived by the beholder to be incorrect?

As such if arrogance is subjective to perception, in a reverse scenario - arrogance may therefore be perceived as confidence to a beholder of a certain perspective.

Oh but I fear that there are human traits involved which only leads me to believe that it is entirely subjective.

What is said or done and what is heard or interpreted are often very different things.

One mans confidence is another's arrogance perhaps.

Dragan

AnCatDubh wrote: »

As such if arrogance is subjective to perception, in a reverse scenario - arrogance may therefore be perceived as confidence to a beholder of a certain perspective.

If i might apply the argument to a different area for a second, when i was boxing ( at a very, very low level ) and would have an inter club fight with someone i was always much happier to face an opponent who was arrogant as opposed to confident.

And arrogant person tends to feel on top of their game, flawless and like victory is assured. They would, 90% of the time, be blind to their own mistakes and working off the assumption of victory.

A confident person tends to feel on top of their game but does not allow themselves to drift too far into the future, staying in the now and working the game plan and knowing, that if they do what they should do, they will win.

Throughout the course of my life i have consistantly seen arrogant people making obvious mistakes in various area's that a confident person would not.

I have always thought it was a simple lack of work ethic in the arrogant types.

For those reasons, if i was vying for a position against a fellow photographer then i would happily face an arrogant one, as opposed to a confident one.:)

Psychobiker

Arrogance is proportional to the length of your lens

Those with 800Ls?!

af_thefragile

Psychobiker wrote: »

Arrogance is proportional to the length of your lens

Those with 800Ls?!

what about those with the Sigma 200-500 f2.8??

Covey

You just can't say Sigma and Arrogant in the same sentence. :pac::):p

DadaKopf

Fear of being arrogant can block creativity. Dragan put it nicely when he said that he allows himself a moment of arrogance. But isn't this the inner feeling of success? The feeling that you know you've achieved something on your own terms?

What I believe arrogance to be is not simply self belief, but self belief combined with a dismissiveness of others' points of view or perspectives expressed through their own work. The source of one's arrogance may be different from person to person, sometimes it's insecurity, sometimes it's an abundance of energy and self-belief, sometimes focus or narcissism.

But to go back to the original question, I found the title a little misleading - the use of the word 'ego'. The 'ego' in the popular imagination is synonymous with 'arrogance'. In psychoanalysis, the mind is made up of three things: the id, the ego and the superego. The ego is the public self, the bit that filters the impulses from the id and superego. The id is libido - pure creative and destructive energy. The superego is the moral part - it gives the ego and id orders, one should do this or that, it is wrong to do this or that, etc. Both id and superego are extreme poles of the mind, they often flip into each other.

I don't know whether this theory is accurate, but it's entered the ways we think about the mind, and about art. It seems then that having an ego in art is very important, but it must be a free-flow of energy from id to superego. It's about connecting passion to purpose in a public way through the ego, the public self.

Anouilh

http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=PAQ.009.0256A

Freud was very engaging when he wrote about the role of the artist.

I think the misunderstandings introduced by worrying about arrogance has brought this thread more or less to a standstill.

"Ego" is a moveable feast, or so Freud thought:

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html

When I take photos I'm a confused cluster of Id, Dof and Light. Mostly light...

Ego, which manages the expression of what is there, is essential when it comes to presenting work. It need not have a value judgement grafted on to it.

Also, a good camera helps...

I would love to know why everybody is so passionate about this subject and whether the answers so far have helped.

democrates

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I try to reduce the perception of arrogance that I give out. I know how it feels to be the 'stupidest' person in the room, and its a not a feeling I like. That is why I don't like imparting that feeling to others.

+1 That social aspect is what I personally see as most important. Having worked in IT for years I've come accross some extremes from the nerd spitting condescending retorts to the user apologising for not being more knowledgeable.

Few people like bullies, that includes intellectual bullies, so the genius may be equally respected and despised. At the other end of the spectrum it doesn't take people long to discover charlitans who try to trade on a cult of personality. Generally I don't care much if a person is born with brains or flair, or what their self image may be versus the perceptions of others, so long as they're a decent human being in their dealings.

There seems to be a difference between the sexes, with men more likely to trade on personal power (I'm great therefore my work is great) and women more likely to focus on results (my work is great therefore I'm great). That's based on my observations of people selling themselves on reality tv from dragons den to the apprentice and do forth. Anyone else notice this or have I been filtering the dataset to fit the theory?

Phototoxin

Does it get on your nerves when other people have an "I'm fantastic!" attitude when maybe sometimes they could do with being told where they are actually going wrong?

YES, YES IT DOES

What also annoys me is the faux '3rd party endorsement'

Phototoxin is the bees knees when it comes to taking photos, really he is. He is available to charge you money to take pictures of him etc.

Writers do it do for some reason. Its ok if a 3rd party DID write it but I have found that this is not always the case.

I feel you shouldn't be doing something unless you're fairly confident about it. Of course in photography you don't need to be confident in any way, unless you expect to make a bit of money or are promoting yourself. If your just starting off, it's all fine and dandy not being sure about yourself; assurance will come in time with hard work.

The more you practise the better you get. Believing in yourself is one thing. Beleiving excessively and possibly falsely in your abilities is another thing, its pride / arrogance. There is a difference in being confident. For example one of my hobbies is warhammer, I am confident that I am one of the top 10 players in the country and possibly the top with my chosen army due to the latest tournament results. This is more easily measurable and is less subjective than if you are a photographer for example where 'art' is subjective. In fairness I would get irritated at someone who i would percieve as having no talent, but lots of arrogance/excessive confidence in their own supposed talents, placing a bowl of dog poop in the tate and geting paid £7.5MILLION for it.

You have offered so many personality traits in one post that it is difficult to work oneself out into the light.


"Arrogance", as a Spanish woman once told me "is a protection against stupid people".

Yes - the arrogant one is stupid for thinking themselves superior!

Arrogance is proportional to the length of your lens

and if you are a man it isinversely proportional to your other 'lens' .... *gets coat*

challengemaster

Phototoxin wrote: »

and if you are a man it is inversely proportional to your other 'lens' .... *gets coat*

So, I take it you're rightly arrogant then? :pac:

sheesh

What do you all think of arrogant photographers I'm sure some of you here have met some on the meets?

elven

Generally people are arrogant online but not face to face... figures.

Valentia

There is a continent of difference between arrogance and confidence. Arrogant people, in my experience, whether they are masters of their craft or just think they are, have one thing in common: a narrow field of vision. It has disturbed me on more than one occasion to hear, mostly in the theatrical field, the venom with which other artists are ridiculed and put down, often by very talented people themselves. Arrogance is the product of fear and lack of confidence in many cases. A defence mechanism. In some cases it is plain ignorance. Selfish is another word that comes to mind.

Confidence is just that. Belief in ones ability. Again it can be feigned but it is usually easy to tell. Confident people rarely reflect their confidence by being negative towards others. Arrogant people often do.

Why we post photos for others to see has, of course, plenty to do with ego. But it has much to do with our communal instincts. Our instinct to bounce ideas, jokes, frustrations off others. Like enjoying a good movie with friends rather than on our own.

I find it very difficult expressing myself in print and I think many people come across very differently here than they really are. You can't beat the ol' wink or nudge!

I must say that I agree with most of what the Covey has said too. Nothing pisses me off more than the con jobs that are perpetrated in the name of art. As elven said, this is not always the artists fault.

AnCatDubh

elven wrote: »

Generally people are arrogant online but not face to face... figures.

It can be a great source of discontent on forums (even our own little one) and I think it was Cabansail who posted something on another thread about missing the visuals when you type. This is similar to the idea which Valentia expresses above. We've all been there - fuming at the other end of a post that someone has misinterpreted and reacted harshly and perhaps for the most part out of character. As Valentia says you miss the nudge or the wink.

AnCatDubh

AnCatDubh wrote: »

It can be a great source of discontent on forums (even our own little one) and I think it was Cabansail who posted something on another thread about missing the visuals when you type. This is similar to the idea which Valentia expresses above. We've all been there - fuming at the other end of a post that someone has misinterpreted and reacted harshly and perhaps for the most part out of character. As Valentia says you miss the nudge or the wink.

I try and follow the rule of not saying anything online that I wouldn't say to a persons face.

Keyboard warrior types piss me off!

Valentia

Deleted User wrote: »

I try and follow the rule of not saying anything online that I wouldn't say to a persons face.

Often it's not what you say but how it's interpreted differently in print than intended. I have met a good few people here. I have been amazed how different, personality wise, they are in reality compared to how they come across here.

Fionn

yeah the visual or aural cues are missing - text is/can be totally different than the spoken word!! and its often the case that its not only WHAT you say/type something but WHEN you do it