is it possible to create something that you aren't a little

>>9410513
No. Good art reveals a piece of yourself. It's incredibly difficult not to feel a little self conscious about it at first. If you don't feel that way your work is probably just superficial trash. Even if you do feel that way it's probably superficial trash, but I digress.

>>9410513
Yes, but in order to do so you have to be the best guy in your medium. Petrarch, Michelangelo, Beethoven: they could pull it off and they knew exactly why and to what extent they were infinitely superior to their competition.

Either achieve that level of perfection or be dumb enough to not see the flaws in your art (just eat paint chips every once in a while)

>>9410544
>I seem to you to have written everything, or at least a great deal, while to myself I appear to have produced almost nothing.
Petrarch
>Lord, grant that I may always desire more than I can accomplish.
Michelangelo

>>9410544
>best guy in your medium.
i aiming for biggest guy instead, the biggest guy in screenwriting fyi

>>9410544
"Biggest guys in the medium" that stop being embarrased about their works usually degrade very fast.

Just never be embarrassed from the very beginning. This "b-but a real artist hates his work, fucking Dunning-Krugers" is just bullshit.

only good art causes self consciousness

so just make some half ass garbage and say "I didn't put my heart into this one, It came out like I expected"

>>9410577
No fair. Beathoven would say cool stuff is he wasn't blind, deaf, and incapacitated by his autism.

not sure why the answers in here are focusing on art. whether youre embarrassed or not has to do with your subjective response to it at that specific time

i need more posts in my thread pls

>>9411317
>only good art causes self consciousness

>so just make some half ass garbage and say "I didn't put my heart into this one, It came out like I expected"

I've done this. It was a steaming heap of garbage but it was wicked fun to put all of the old self-consciousness aside for a while and just see where it took me. I ended up rolling dice to make critical decisions. It was great and terrible and I highly recommend giving it a go just once.

File: image.jpg (141KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1000x750px

>>9410577
These are just nuances of their pwrsonalities, which were inherently superb and narcissistic.

>>9411032
This is a modern stereotype that, I think, you're deriving from cinema and modern bands (in fact this has been a clichė for 70 years now: the first albums of a band are usually the better ones).
My speculation is that this derive from a lack of formal training of the artist.

Take a 15yo teenager, lock him in a room for one year with a classical guitar and the come back. You'll discover that this guy has almost certainly developed certain styles and musical ideas that you would deem as effective, interesting and original. In the same way most non-classical/jazz/contemporary musicians are usually recognized by "moves": mannerisms that are associated in a way or another to their musicianship.
By focusing on said style their music will eventually become trite: think, for example, about Jimi Hendrix' career, it's the perfect example of what I'm talking about. He comes up with a revolutionary outlook on his main instrument and magnified it in 2-3 albums. After that? He was done, he didn't have the tools necessary to analyze his musical quirks, nor he did know how to overcome both his guitarism and his blind adherence to either the song or the jam form. He was stuck in a very specific, now old musical landscape, and there was no way out of it. This happens very often in cinema too, where certain directors manage to come up with a good idea and the rehash it, making progressively more baroque and pompous until no one is interested anymore in it.

This is why I don't think this stereotypes apply to "classical" artists: they were honestly better than that. This brand of narcissism will never be a inherent flaw in Mozart, Raffaello, Dante or Canova, since these quirks of their personality will just be a part of a much larger genius who is able to produce costantly the kind of ideas I've mentioned earlier in this post.

It's not about being a virtuoso, it's about overcoming even that state. Petrarch may have been every once in a while skeptic of his art, but at the same time he thought that he had no peer in Europe, and very few ones in history. Michelangelo thout he was literally the best sculptor who has ever lived. Beethoven believed so much in his genius that, when looking at Schubert's scores, he identified certain mannerisms as "mistakes" only because they were outside of his sensibility (which, to him, at this point was a sign of the universal).

It's not about being modest about their Art, rather it is about being modest about Art itself:they doubt its value from time to time, but they do not doubt their value in this particular system and hierarchy.

my2c