The lone genius myth: not so genius?
Have you ever dreamed about being a genius? 🧐
I have. In my career as a designer, I was often egocentric and convinced about my omnipotence in creation. Sometimes it would negatively impact my projects. I didn’t consult them with anyone. Such a genius I was.
What is more, I kept on reassuring myself that I should not share my ideas with anyone — I thought that it would destroy my image as a good designer. In reality, the only thing I was destroying was my ability to grow. Unconsciously, I was letting my ego limit my creative potential, which was resulting in worse designs.
Now I know that it might have been a result of believing in the lone genius myth.
As Thomas Carlyle (a XIXth century Scottish cultural critic, historian, philosopher) had said:
‘The history of the world is but the biography of great men.’
Oh, and I was so into that! When I was in my twenties, I was consuming
as many biographies as I was able to: Walt Disney, John Lennon, Steve Jobs (obviously, all respectable journals in my industry would make sure to never miss his name).
Of course, I wanted to become a famous artist, a star just like one of them.
I was determined to find a way to do it.
Sweet Lord, my thinking was so wrong.
While I was busy studying their lives, searching for good strategies, I wasn’t seeing one important element: the other people, who helped these stars rise to their glory.
The lone genius myth
Back in 1995, researchers Alfonso Montuori and Ronald E. Purser deconstructed the lone genius myth in a study as ‘the problematic nature of a hyper-individualistic understanding of creativity’. The beginning of the lone genius myth can be found in the European Renaissance. That era sought to capture the experience of an exceptional individual, such as Leonardo da Vinci, also known as ‘the Renaissance man’.
During the Renaissance, individualism was celebrated more than ever before. It was to oppose the medieval idea of creating in the name of God. At that time, a single man, a mere individual was putting himself in the center of creation, single-handedly assuming the role of God.
Focusing on individuality gained a new life in Romanticism, another era promoting the uniqueness of artistic expression, based on personal feelings, which can be seen in Lord Byron’s writings. This divine perception of a man, a genius, standing alone in front of a sea (as in a romantic painting of ‘Wanderer above the Sea of Fog’) can seem obvious and easy to accept. Such a powerful individual brings a sense of nobility.
The lone genius myth was eventually reinforced in the United States, as an idea of a ‘self-made man’, which was a classic phrase forged in 1842 by Henry Clay in the United States Senate, to describe an individual, who became successful through his own actions.
Multiple examples of ‘self-made men’ and lone geniuses intimidate us.
It’s very difficult to put ourselves in their shoes and pretend to be their creative and self-sufficient equals. That pressure can easily block our initial desire for creation — if we are not even close to a golden standard of a genius, should we even bother to start a piece? This exact striving for perfection was often paralyzing me and leading to procrastination.
Sistine Chapel — not-so-exclusive Michelangelo’s work
The ‘lone genius’ myth is just a romantic and illusive narrative, as history proves. Let’s go back to a Renaissance monumental piece of art, the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Authorship is credited to Michelangelo, however, the final effect was a complex project of seven artists. It’s highly doubtful that Michelangelo would be able to finish the project by himself, having known his lack of expertise in fresco techniques and his admiration
for time-consuming details.
Michelangelo asked for help from a trusted friend from Florence, Francesco Granacci, a painter, whom he met during his studies.
Granacci was an easy-going man, not eager for artistic competition.
His tempered character and willingness to acknowledge Michelangelo’s supremacy led to a fruitful collaboration.
In this duet, Michelangelo was the great visionary, while Granacci was there to help him execute his concept (he was the producer, as suggested in ‘Power of two’ by Joshua W. Shenk).
Even though Michelangelo loved to work alone, he trusted Granacci and his opinion to hire assistants. The scope of work was immense. The first stage was removing old plasters from the ceiling, to create the new ones, as
a canvas for painters. Michelangelo had no idea how to do it, so Granacci hired Pietro Rosselli. The canvas measured 12 000 square meters, so Granacci asked another four painters to cover the blank areas left out by the master. Michelangelo was simply unable to finish the painting on his own. We focused here on the artists only, skipping the whole construction team, building scaffolding 20 meters high! They all were essential in turning such an immense idea into reality.
So — is it worth designing in pairs?
Let’s run with a basic question: is working in a pair better than working alone?
Science proves that working in a pair has the most effective and inspiring dynamic — better than being alone, in a triangle or a more complex group. A group of two people can be more creative and flexible, more easily adjustable to external or internal factors. An individual in a pair has an equal chance of being seen, both in struggle and euphoria. Being in a tandem requires honesty and actively producing ideas, since you can’t hide behind others’ backs.
In his book ‘Emotional Intelligence’, Daniel Goleman describes a phenomenon called ‘neural Wi-Fi’, occurring by mirror neurons. They are tracking intentions, emotional flow and activating the same areas in our brains. Experiencing someone else’s state, or being able to track their path of thinking, we could compare our team work to a neuroprosthesis of a kind. So, we have an extra medium to grow our ideas on, an intellectual exchange that can be far more productive with another person.
If we look back in history, this discovery is not such an innovation.
A classical figure in American philosopher George Santayana said in the late XIXth century:
‘Friendship is almost always the union of a part of one mind
with the part of another.’
Thanks to this brain-to-brain connection, we can enrich our old ways of thinking and replace them with advanced and expanded neuronal paths.
Final battle: abundance vs scarcity mindset
I started my work as a freelance designer, and I continued having this individualistic mindset even in my first job in a team. My first attempt at pair design was with my friend from the marketing department, Ola (cheers!), and, as it turned out, it ended up being my favorite part of my previous job. The quality of my performance was raising, but a real revolution was yet to come. It was in the supportive environment of my present company, RSQ Technologies, where the bomb of creativity has really exploded.
First, I was a bit scared during design consultation with a team, conducted every week, to brainstorm our ideas. I was thinking that I’m not so senior if I have to give my ideas under a common dispute. I represented a scarcity mindset, which limited my potential. Over time, working and brainstorming with such a wonderful team of designers, I discovered that real seniority lies in an ability to change our mind and build new solutions instead of accepting the most obvious one.
Initially, it took a lot of courage to endure receiving feedback. But then
I started seeing the fruits of my work through different eyes. Such an abundance of various perspectives gave me even better solutions.
Finally, I realized that I was never going to be such a great illustrator as my colleague Natalia Trochowska, my favorite person to work with. I was never drawn to the details as much as she was, what made her master the logo design and color matching. What’s new to me now, is the lack of sadness when I’m thinking that I’m not such a designer. I am a different one.
I support us with wit and high spirit, organize our work, provide vision and talk to clients. We create amazing projects together because we are able to use the best parts of ourselves. With motivation, honesty, and support.
Summary
Despite how good the lone genius myth sounds, and how beautifully it is described in Lord Byron’s literature, history over the centuries shows us that the best results are achieved in pairs.
Modern times also give us plenty of good examples to illustrate the power of collective thinking. The most famous one, Apple, a technology giant, wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the merge of two great minds: Steve Jobs, and his friend Steve Woźniak. If Paul McCartney hadn’t come to the church fête, he wouldn’t have met John Lennon and the Beatles would never have formed. Last but not least, if Picasso had not met Matisse in a café in Paris, we do not know how modern art would have developed further.
Picasso was Matisse’s most trusted critic and vice versa.
So, Thomas Carlyle was wrong. I would rather rephrase his quotation as: ‘The history of the world is but the biography of great collectives’. It seems that it’s not only more efficient to share ideas. If two people can trust each other, without pressure to be the best, they deliver better and more unforeseeable solutions (which was proved by Bahador Bahrami and Chris Frith in their article: ‘Optimally Interacted Minds’, published by Science). Later on, Herbert Spencer, another great thinker, said:
‘Before he [an individual] can remake his society, his society must make him.’
Now that we know, that the lone genius myth can be more harmful than helping, it could be the time to take the pressure off an individual. As we all can see, working together can definitely bring more benefits than just working on our own. I’m more than happy to share it with you: not only because it has improved my life, but also because the science of today seems to agree that it works.
- Text editing, proofreading and linguistic help:
Dominika Dutkowska https://www.linkedin.com/in/ddutkowska/
🌟
This article was written thanks to support of many individuals,
my RSQ colleagues and friends.
🙏 When I was struggling with writing, my favorite author Miłosz Brzeziński repeated, after Ernest Hemingway, that ‘the first version of everything is crap.’ Because of this, I was able to continue. I’m paying him with my gratitude!
🌟
