On Humility
(What follows is a post I wrote to an SCA Arts & Sciences related email list. The question had been asked, "What degree of humility is expected or desired regarding the practice of art? ... At what point does sharing or talking about one's art become egregious?" This was my response.)
To certain extent, it is a loaded question because there are presumptions about humility and pride which depend greatly on context. I remember when I was very, very new to the SCA hearing someone talking about this very point. They said, if you aspire to be a knight, it's alright to openly say so. People will respond, 'that's a noble goal, go to practice, find someone to help you,' and other encouraging things. If you want to be a Laurel, it's alright to make it known, cautiously. Some people give you the same encouragement as a fighter, others will tell you that should only do art for art's sake. But if you'd like to be Pelican, Don't. Say. Anything.
Humility comes up in discussions for the Grant-Level Orders because it is widely considered a "peer-like quality". After all, Ramond Lull, in his 13th century work, "Libre del Orde de Cauayleriab (The Book of the Order of Chivalry)" includes it among the virtues of a knight. However, it is not a widely examined, or easily agreed up on virtue, either in our Society, or in modern society at large. Humility is given as the opposite of at least three other qualities: pride, hubris, and narcissism. While hubris and narcissism are easily agreed as negatives, pride is difficult because it is one of the those words that can be used both as a positive and a negative. So it might be worth taking a moment to define our terms.
Hubris is scornful, presumptuous pride; pride at someone else's expense. In the original Greek, it referred to actions that shamed or humiliated a victim for the pleasure of the abuser. Today, the word tends to be twinned with a lack of knowledge: either someone (often from a position of power or privilege) who boasts about what they have done without any real idea of how difficult it may be (or have been) for someone without their advantage to do the same thing, or someone who is blinded by their own arrogance, as in the proverb, "Pride goes before a fall." Thus arrogant statements are often dismissed as "hubris".
Narcissism is morbid or excessive self-admiration. It is not necessarily the same as self-promotion, however. Narcissism tends to be characterized not only by bragging (exaggerated self-promotion), but also by a lack of empathy, flattery of those who admire them, and resentment or attacks on those who fail to admire them.
Which brings us to pride. While, the first definition that Webster's gives for "pride" is "excessive self-esteem", it also gives, "proper self-respect", and "a sense of satisfaction in one's achievements, etc." So, if humility is a lack of hubris and narcissism, it could be argued that humility is, in fact, pride in the final sense given by my dictionary (I am, of course, ignoring the definition of a familial group of lions).
Interestingly, "Le Ordene de Chevalrie (The Ordination of Knighthood)", an anonymous French work contemporary with Lull, uses the term "simpleness" rather than "humility" which reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis (written during World War II):
"Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call “humble” nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a little envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all."
So to answer your question, I think humility - true humility and not mere silence, or self-depreciation - is essential to the practice of art. It's a true estimation of what we have accomplished, whether good ... or not so good (yet). By all means share, that is what art is for! And talk about it? Of course! BUT with a sense of balance and magnanimity. The pride we feel in our art should be what fires our enthusiasm and makes people want to talk to us about it, not anything either pompous or whiney that makes people want to run far, far away. At what point does it become egregious? Interesting word, that. Originally it meant "outstanding" but sarcastic use in the 16th century inverted the meaning completely to "conspicuously bad". I'd say talking about one's art shifts from humble pride to egregious pride when it shifts from talking about the work to talking about oneself, or when it shifts from enjoying the accomplishment into narcissistic territory.
To certain extent, it is a loaded question because there are presumptions about humility and pride which depend greatly on context. I remember when I was very, very new to the SCA hearing someone talking about this very point. They said, if you aspire to be a knight, it's alright to openly say so. People will respond, 'that's a noble goal, go to practice, find someone to help you,' and other encouraging things. If you want to be a Laurel, it's alright to make it known, cautiously. Some people give you the same encouragement as a fighter, others will tell you that should only do art for art's sake. But if you'd like to be Pelican, Don't. Say. Anything.
Humility comes up in discussions for the Grant-Level Orders because it is widely considered a "peer-like quality". After all, Ramond Lull, in his 13th century work, "Libre del Orde de Cauayleriab (The Book of the Order of Chivalry)" includes it among the virtues of a knight. However, it is not a widely examined, or easily agreed up on virtue, either in our Society, or in modern society at large. Humility is given as the opposite of at least three other qualities: pride, hubris, and narcissism. While hubris and narcissism are easily agreed as negatives, pride is difficult because it is one of the those words that can be used both as a positive and a negative. So it might be worth taking a moment to define our terms.
Hubris is scornful, presumptuous pride; pride at someone else's expense. In the original Greek, it referred to actions that shamed or humiliated a victim for the pleasure of the abuser. Today, the word tends to be twinned with a lack of knowledge: either someone (often from a position of power or privilege) who boasts about what they have done without any real idea of how difficult it may be (or have been) for someone without their advantage to do the same thing, or someone who is blinded by their own arrogance, as in the proverb, "Pride goes before a fall." Thus arrogant statements are often dismissed as "hubris".
Narcissism is morbid or excessive self-admiration. It is not necessarily the same as self-promotion, however. Narcissism tends to be characterized not only by bragging (exaggerated self-promotion), but also by a lack of empathy, flattery of those who admire them, and resentment or attacks on those who fail to admire them.
Which brings us to pride. While, the first definition that Webster's gives for "pride" is "excessive self-esteem", it also gives, "proper self-respect", and "a sense of satisfaction in one's achievements, etc." So, if humility is a lack of hubris and narcissism, it could be argued that humility is, in fact, pride in the final sense given by my dictionary (I am, of course, ignoring the definition of a familial group of lions).
Interestingly, "Le Ordene de Chevalrie (The Ordination of Knighthood)", an anonymous French work contemporary with Lull, uses the term "simpleness" rather than "humility" which reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis (written during World War II):
"Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call “humble” nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody. Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him. If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a little envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all."
So to answer your question, I think humility - true humility and not mere silence, or self-depreciation - is essential to the practice of art. It's a true estimation of what we have accomplished, whether good ... or not so good (yet). By all means share, that is what art is for! And talk about it? Of course! BUT with a sense of balance and magnanimity. The pride we feel in our art should be what fires our enthusiasm and makes people want to talk to us about it, not anything either pompous or whiney that makes people want to run far, far away. At what point does it become egregious? Interesting word, that. Originally it meant "outstanding" but sarcastic use in the 16th century inverted the meaning completely to "conspicuously bad". I'd say talking about one's art shifts from humble pride to egregious pride when it shifts from talking about the work to talking about oneself, or when it shifts from enjoying the accomplishment into narcissistic territory.