Renaissance vs. mediocre

author's note: this blog is not meant to imply any ingratitude, nor am I digging for compliments, this is simply what I was thinking yesterday.

Yesterday I "taught" a masterclass for the pianists in mine and Reesa's piano studios to prepare them for the Piano Guild Auditions (happening monday). I love to do this and I run my masterclasses much like Sara Harris runs hers- food included. Helping younger, less experienced, probably more talented than I, pianists is lots of fun for me. They did well and I thoroughly expect them to do very well at the auditions on monday.

Hours later, I was being domestic and loading the dishwasher when the thought came to me: I am not great at anything. I am good at some different things, but I cannot claim to be that great at anything.

This started me thinking about the difference between the Jack-of-all-trades and the mediocre man. And Leonardo DaVinci.

What is a Jack-of-all-trades? This person has a working knowledge and skill in many areas, but is master of none. This person seems to know a little about everything- and can do most everything moderately.

What is a mediocre man (or woman)? This person is (from the dictionary) moderate to inferior in quality, ordinary. This person lives an ordinary life.

And pretty much a great person is Leonardo DaVinci. Yep.

What am I?

I'm sure none of you out there have these moments of self-evaluation and find that you have not fulfilled whatever potential you thought you had. Not that I'm wallowing. I'm just trying to see things a little more realistically.

I am an incurable optimist and maybe that has become a liability. I've always tried to see the best things in any situation, and assume the best of other people. But perhaps this eternal optimism has kept me in self-denial about my various talents/abilities. Which is why this particular epiphany while bending over an open dishwasher, arranging the silverware so they will all get clean, was so startling.

Am I ordinary? Yes. Does that immediately mean I am mediocre?

Here's the argument:

if A then B.

if B then C.

A therefore C.

To be mediocre is to be moderate in quality- ordinary.

If I am ordinary, then I am moderate in quality.

If I am moderate in quality, then I am mediocre.

Therefore, If I am ordinary, then I am mediocre.

Or am I something else?

And what is wrong with being ordinary anyways? Who said that everyone has to be brilliant in everything they do or even in just one thing? We can't all be genius. We can't all be fools. We can just be.

I guess I've just answered my question. I can be an ordinary person with many interests and not be amazing at everything. That's a liberating reality. I've thought for my whole life that I needed to be something different and special by excelling at everything I tried- so I could be good at SOMETHING! And, really, that was because I have a sister who is a couple months older than me and I've been trying to one-up her for my whole life.

Which sucks.

And it stops now.

So, I guess this is my manifesto:

I am okay with being an ordinary person. I am not the best at anything, but I'm pretty good at some things and that's got to be okay. I'll never be an olympic athlete, a VanCliburn pianist, a celebrated chef, a great seamstress, gardener, the list goes on and on. But I'm getting to be okay with just being me- that will have to do for now.