Isn't it a built in assumption?

Was catching up on some blog reading last night - read a few of Edward_ Winkleman's posts, including this one, on (paraphrasing) artists' egos.

I couldn't wade through all of the comments, there was too much snarkiness and sniping and big art-y words to keep me interested. So maybe this was already stated in the comments, but I prefer to keep my comments here.

He was basically talking about whether or not successful artists think they are great artists. I find this an interesting question, since in my opinion all artists must think they are great artists. I certainly do. If you are a person willing to spend the time, money and energy creating art beyond, say grad school, then clearly you must think your art is worth seeing, and therefore at some level of greatness.

Any artist who is modest about their work is either lying , being disingenuous or just not thinking clearly about their position. I'm pretty sure a lot of the 'loser-ism' that artists wrap themselves in (those who chose to), is just part of a costume - putting on the artist persona.

I know there are many times where I look at my art and think - "wow! that is so f-ing awesome!" -- I've put up shows that made me weep because I thought they were so good. (Now, maybe it still didn't entirely meet my high expectations, but I still thought they were great).

How many artists walk into galleries and more often think "my art is better than this" than "this is the greatest artwork i have ever seen." Admittedly, I have seen (and written about) some pretty great shows, but I generally think of my art as being on par with that other great art.

I just find it hard to believe that one would desire to thrust mediocrity on the public eye. Its just not true.