Happy Halloween!
Egotism comes with many negative connotations. But we all have egos, so why is it bad to be egotistical? Is art making possible without the ego to act as a filter? Is subjectivity possible without an ego? Say what you will, but I feel strongly that the answer is no.
Every artist, myself included, is a practicing egotist. That's why it's art, and not commodity. It is shaped by the ego, not by need, by use, or by nature. Perhaps the most humble thing an egotist can consider himself to be is a mere filter through which sensory input flows.
Art is more than just the application of skill, art is a cultivated means of interpreting the outer world subjectively. This is the function of the ego for artists and non-artists alike; the only difference is that the artist has something to show for it. A master carpenter can build some beautiful cabinets and be very proud of them, but all the while his mind might have been occupied with something beyond building cabinets. But if the artist is putting the necessary amount of contemplation into his work, then the painting, or drawing, or sculpture, or whatever is the physical end result of a mental process.
Input-thought-nerve impulse-muscle movement-tool manipulation-art object. A sequence that cannot exist without the ego to act as a filter. Even photography and digital art follow this sequence, though the tools are much more sophisticated.
The cabinet-maker also follows this process while cutting, assembling, and staining wood, but at its inception the decision is not to make something aesthetic (though pleasing to the eye his work might be), but to make something functional and useful. His input is filtered through the demands of his client who needs cabinets for his kitchen. "Shall I go with cherry stain, or maple? Maple would match the furniture in the living room, so I want you to stain them maple." And, since this is his livelihood, the carpenter complies.
This is why artists are not generally hired to design kitchens. The artist might want to paint the cabinets fuchsia with chartreuse pin stripes. In fact, he might not even give a damn whether they open or close properly, so long as they look good. "Useful" and "functional" are not words commonly used to describe art.
Is art, then, useless?
Yes, it is. It's completely useless. It might occasionally serve the purpose of earning its creator money, but the art itself does nothing. It just sits there or hangs there and people look at it.
Art objects are fossils of the ego. They are records of this one human existence. The right of that art to exist is the same as the right of that person to exist. "Useless" is not the same as "worthless". An original Picasso is useless, but it is not worthless. A person can be useless, but unless you're thinking like a sociopath, then no person is worthless.
Human existence is inexorably tied to the ego, and art is a product of the ego. Art can be good or bad just like people can be good or bad. Good art might be made by a bad person, while bad art might be made by a good person.
So to say that, "He sure is an egotistical asshole" might be accurate but egotistical is not necessarily bad. Artists are extremely egotistical people, but not all of them are bad people, in fact, some are rather nice. Artists are egotistical in the sense that the ego is a vital part of what they do.
