Can an artist be humble (about her art)?

Day 12/90 — The humble artist doesn’t exist.

We’re often told that being humble is a virtue that compliments most parts of life. The definition of humble is:

having or showing a modest or low estimate of one’s importance

A humble person questions herself, is open to taking on different perspectives, and acknowledges that she is of low importance; hence a humble person will naturally grow and improve constantly— that’s why we consider it a virtue.

I write poetry and fiction which most people consider a form of art. I’ve talked to other artistic friends. One thought kept circling in my head:

Can an artist be humble?

And if they can, should they?

Doesn’t creating art require the opposite of humbleness — the unconditional belief in one’s own creative abilities? The belief that whatever one is creating has enough meaning to be worth the process of making, building, and in most cases, sharing?

This article investigates the humble artist.

What’s the opposite of humble?

The dictionary of opposite words gives the following as the opposite of humble:

assertive, boasting, brave, conceited, egotistical, insolent, pretentious, proud, showy.

I would argue that in some form, an artist needs to possess most of these features in order to act on the urge to create. Especially, artists who share their work publicly must be brave, assertive, and proud. Why would they share their art otherwise? So as per definition, most artists can’t be very humble. Hm.

The ideal artist

The ideal artist would likely be someone who is humble enough to realize she can always improve and do better but is also proud enough to be able to notice her own worth as an artist.

I’ve read many autobiographies and memoirs of artists, writers, and poets, both well-known and less-known, and I’ve never once concluded that someone was humble about their art. In fact, the most admired artists are and were extremely driven towards their craft, many of them selfish, even narcissist about it.

And so am I. More often, than I’d like to admit.

I believe the single most important attribute for an artist to succeed — and here I define success as regular creation, potentially sharing work, gaining recognition — is bravery. As mentioned before, bravery is considered the opposite of humble. The circle closes here.

An artist hence can’t be humble — at least not about their art. An artist must strive for the opposite. Courage, standing out, uniqueness.

A flawed reasoning

Most artists we know openly share their passion, often their innermost happenings. We associate humbleness with vulnerability. Someone sharing their emotions in the form of art admits to a certain vulnerability. Naturally, we’d associate humbleness with the sharing of vulnerability. But that logic is flawed. Admitting vulnerability actually takes bravery.

Remember that bravery is considered the opposite of humbleness as per definition. As per the same definition, the artist hence isn’t humble.

She is brave or proud of creating. She either wants or is at least willing to stand out, to ger the point that is her art across.

Can an artist be humble?

Ultimately, the answer is no. Dedicating an entire life or even just a few hours a week on creating takes assertiveness and some pride. Sharing art always requires bravery.

Unless we change our definition of humble, an artist can’t be humble.

From one artist to another, please don’t be humble about your art. Ever.

Want to contribute to shared and done?

Send in your submission via Medium or email me.

This is day 12 of 90 days that I will be sharing something I’ve learned here in this publication. Don’t miss it.