I made it so it must be good.

September 25, 2009 9:35 AM

Looking for a word/phrase that describes when someone thinks an artistic work they created is marketable/likable, yet is something they wouldn't care for if it was created by someone else.

Example (that is truly hypothetical yet sounds fueled by bitterness): Someone films a movie they think deserves an audience/financier/praise. However, if someone else had made that same film, they'd be unimpressed.

To clarify, this has nothing to do with sense of accomplishment, and I fully acknowledge that art is subjective. This is specifically "You'd hate it if you didn't make it".

posted by yorick to human relations (20 comments total)

narcissism?
posted by Lutoslawski at 9:49 AM on September 25

Great.

The opposite. A word that describes the marketable/likable work of someone else that someone would like if only it was their own: crap.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 9:55 AM on September 25

Anything with Nick Cage in it? Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm going with delusional crap.
posted by stormpooper at 9:56 AM on September 25

Not as specific as what you're asking for, but- you could say they have a blind spot.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:57 AM on September 25

I'll back up showbiz_liz for this, it's pretty much impossible to know how you'd feel about something you made if someone else made it, because they didn't. if the OP has a specific example they'd care to share, I'd be interested to know.

Obliquely, "arrogance" would be the sense that nobody could do it as well as they could.

Does this question come not from the sense of the creator but from a critique of the creator's attitude by a third party? If that's the case, then I'd call it resentment on the part of the critic which has nothing to do with the creator at all.
posted by rhizome at 10:18 AM on September 25

This is probably summarized by a type of cognitive bias.

Which specific one, I don't know.

Most people have a higher view of themselves than is realistic.
posted by kathrineg at 11:08 AM on September 25

These are all from wikipedia:

Choice-supportive bias is a tendency to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected.

The exposure effect (also known as the mere exposure effect) is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them.

Post-purchase rationalization is a common phenomenon after people have invested significant time, money, or effort in something to convince themselves that it must have been worth it.

Illusory superiority (also known as better-than-average effect) is a cognitive bias in which people overestimate the degree to which they possess desirable qualities, relative to others, or underestimate their negative qualities relative to others.
posted by kathrineg at 11:17 AM on September 25 [1 favorite]

Sounds like Parent Syndrome.
posted by rokusan at 11:20 AM on September 25

The self-link effect.
posted by ook at 11:23 AM on September 25

"A face only your mother could love"
posted by fontophilic at 11:44 AM on September 25

delusion
posted by mattsweaters at 12:42 PM on September 25

self indulgent
posted by genesta at 12:43 PM on September 25

The comments so far are great, and will help me explain this concept next time it comes up in conversation.
Here's an example I've run into lately, one that I don't think is due to arrogance:
I've been reading through scripts that are considered final drafts. The writers think what they did makes perfect sense, but it's impossible for anyone else to follow. It's as if they're unable to imagine themselves as an audience member, not realizing that critical information is hard to follow or missing entirely. It doesn't strike me as arrogant... it seems subconscious and innocent to me, but I'm speculating.
posted by yorick at 1:03 PM on September 25

Delusions of grandeur
posted by bravowhiskey at 1:44 PM on September 25

I take photos. I fall in love with some of my own photos that no one else seems to like. And then strangers will pay money for prints of my photos that I don't think are that great. I don't understand it. Further, I would never hang my own work on my wall because it's not my style. I call it "crazy psycho weirdness", but that's not a technical term.

Perhaps some people are just poor writers. And if they're writing scripts, they may be under the delusion that someone will doctor up their work while they can take credit for the ideas.
posted by aabbbiee at 1:51 PM on September 25

Perhaps some people just don't realize that they are poor writers. I wonder if David Baldacci has any clue what a bad writer he is. Certainly his banker won't be telling him.
posted by SLC Mom at 2:11 PM on September 25

hypocrisy
posted by JimN2TAW at 2:58 PM on September 25

after seeing your follow-up, I'd second liz. If we're talking about the fact that they like the scripts they have given you, I'd say that they have a blind spot where their own work is concerned. "Blind spot" i think refers to one's subjective feeling about a work, a person, etc.

But ... in your example, the writers are simply bad writers. Good writing is writing that will be understood. I'm not sure it needs a special term. Just say it's bad and say why.
posted by JimN2TAW at 3:07 PM on September 25

I cannot recall the name of this effect and it's impossible to Google, but there is a "thing" where people who have poor skills overestimate their ability. In the lab, you can give people tests, ask them to predict how well they did, and they'll think their scores will be great. The poorer their skills, the more likely they are to rate themselves highly. (Being the kind of person who imagines that they are self-critical doesn't help.)

Then you, the evil mad scientist and army of overworked grad students, give those same human test subjects a couple of training sessions on the test work, give them the test again, and ask them to predict how well they did, and they will rate themselves lower, and more accurately.

In your scenario, I would imagine the inept writer would be unimpressed because they don't have the background or skills to evaluate movies/screenplays according to a set of standards and just randomly like and dislike things.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:41 PM on September 25

I back up katherineg and Lesser Shrew by thinking that it's "illusionary superiority."
posted by saveyoursanity at 8:32 AM on September 26