Loser

I know this is a country that loves competition. Check out all those reality shows (or not) where people humiliate themselves in front of the nation for some carrot dangling in front of them, or those mothers who parade their little daughters in beauty pageants (what I call the Kinder Whore culture), or every girl scout who ever showed up at your door hawking those cookies so they can be the cookie-selling-est girl scout in the whole world. That's the way some people drive themselves. They thrive on pushing ahead of someone else. And I guess it makes sense in sports. There are scores, there are specific winners and losers. In the extreme version of this, if you are not #1 you are a loser, so the second best football team in the country, the one that loses the Super Bowl, is just as big a loser as the team that didn't win a single game that season. I guess I'm a loser by those standards. I've come in first exactly twice in my life (not counting games of Trivial Pursuit. I am mildly great at that game). I won a city wide school art prize in 1967, my senior year of high school, and in 1995 I was the Texas Dance Teacher of the Year (a moment of hushed awe) for the TAHPERD organization (Texas Association of Health, P.E., Recreation, and Dance). There was no crown involved, unfortunately, because I would have worn that to school the next day, but I shook the hand of  then-Governor George Bush, who showed up at the state convention to endorse health and fitness so make of that what you will. I think I was taller than him. And no, I didn't vote for him.
The rest of the time, not counting one honorable mention in another art show, I am a happy loser. Or rather, I choose not to compete. But then that's my beef with making the arts competitive. In sports there is an actual score as an indicator. In the arts there is usually a judge. An artist may enter one show and come in first place, then enter the same work in another show and not even get a mention. It's all based on the subjectivity of the judge. I understand quality and I understand excellent technique. You can tell when art is good, for the most part (and also when it's pure bullshit). Being juried into a show should be the honor in itself. Assigning 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place after that just seems arbitrary. I have been at many shows where a blue ribbon hangs next to an artwork and a large number of viewer comments are usually in the vein of "Hmmmph, I don't know how that piece won."
So besides being an indifferent loser I am also a sore winner. I brush it off, not really enjoying the attention, and possibly thinking there was a mistake made. I may go all Sally Fields for a few moments ("You like me, you really like me!") and then I want to apologize to the other people who are quietly simmering in their loser-tinged disappointment, or waiting to trip me on the way out. It is an awkward and non-satisfying experience. I much prefer group shows where we all hang what we consider to be our best piece and then enjoy each others' creative efforts. But then I like to stay in my comfort zone most of the time. Not always, and occasionally I will find a way to push  that envelope. Just don't give me a prize. Although, maybe I'm a big hypocrite. My daughter just got into a juried photography show and I sure hope she wins.