Enough Time to Be Brilliant: Rethinking Perfectionism and Productivity in the Arts
What would it be like to work in an environment where there was actually enough time to do the creative work expected of us — at the level expected of us?
Enough time to explore, refine, and make space for the unpredictable turns of the creative process. Enough time for the mastery we trained for. Enough time for presence (the state of being fully engaged in the moment, not just performing tasks) — not just performance.
In academia and the professional arts, that question can feel like fantasy. The reality is that most of us are expected to deliver high-level creative work on top of overloaded teaching schedules, administrative duties, constant recruitment, and an ever-growing list of “service” commitments.
The deadlines keep coming. The meetings multiply. The rehearsal time shrinks. And still, the expectation of excellence remains unchanged.
Perfectionism in a Culture of Scarcity
We work inside systems that run on scarcity (a sense of “not enough” — not enough time, resources, or opportunities).
When the atmosphere tells us there’s always someone ready to take our place, it’s easy to believe every moment of our work must prove our value. In that context, perfectionism (the belief that only flawless work ensures safety or worth) isn’t just about high standards — it’s about survival.
The unspoken rules are clear:
Process is private. Only the polished result is fit to be seen.
Anything less than our highest level risks credibility.
Showing work in progress can feel like gambling with our place at the table.
This makes the creative process feel like a performance in itself — every draft, rehearsal, or lesson must already be flawless.
The Cost of Hiding the Process
When we hide our process:
We narrow our creative range because there’s no space to test or fail.
We reinforce the belief that mastery means never making mistakes.
We pass these beliefs on to our students, who learn to measure themselves against impossible standards.
The result? We over-prepare, over-work, and over-commit — not always because it’s necessary, but because perfectionism and scarcity tell us it’s the only way to stay safe in our field.
The Moment Before
Between the pressure to deliver and the choice to respond, there is a moment.
It’s easy to miss — especially when scarcity culture trains us to react instantly, to fill every pause with effort. But that brief space is where agency (the capacity to choose your response rather than reacting automatically) lives.
When we notice it, we can ask:
Is this extra work necessary, or is it fear?
What would happen if I shared this before it’s finished?
Am I adding more because it will truly improve the work, or because it quiets my anxiety?
These questions are not about lowering standards. They’re about reclaiming choice in a culture that conditions us to act before we’ve had the chance to decide.
Creating Space for Brilliance
Brilliance doesn’t come from constant compression. It comes from:
Time to explore without the weight of immediate judgment.
The safety (signals your body reads as reassuring, such as trusted colleagues, supportive environments, or grounding rituals) to show process without fear of losing credibility.
The freedom to set down what doesn’t serve the work.
This doesn’t mean abandoning rigor. It means creating the internal and external conditions where rigor can live alongside humanity.
From Perfectionism to Presence
Perfectionism demands control. Presence (trusting yourself and your process enough to meet what arises) requires trust — in ourselves, in our process, and in our ability to meet what arises.
When we let the process be visible, we normalize experimentation. We model for our students that mastery is built, not performed. And we make space for brilliance that is alive, not frozen in the pursuit of flawlessness.
Reflection Prompt
Where in your work are you hiding your process? What would it take to share something before it’s “finished” — and trust that it’s enough for now?