Skip to main content
Take Test

ISFP Career Interview #1

Interview by Sigurd Arild

Hi Anna - great to have you here, doing the interview. Before we begin, what is your background for identifying as ISFP?

[Laughs.] That you've told me that I am! When I first took the test, I got INTP. But I think that the subsequent explanations you've given me have convinced me that I am probably ISFP.

Another time when I took the test I actually did get ISFP. But I think there were also some suggestions for jobs that would allegedly be right for my type and those jobs were not accurate at all. Hairdresser? Librarian? I couldn't see myself in them at all.

One thing you've explained to me is that ISFPs often have a well-developed sense of aesthetics, and of course that does fit rather well.

What is your education and what do you currently do?

I have a Ph.D. in the history and theory of fine arts. The particular Ph.D. project that I did was one where I cooperated with a museum, which means that it was a bit more practically oriented than your usual Ph.D. in the humanities. For example, one of the things I did as part of my Ph.D. was to organize and plan an art exhibition at the museum. That suited me very well, because I never had any intention of pursuing a career in pure research. That kind of thing holds little allure for me - it's not what made me do the Ph.D.

In my current job I also work at a museum. My job mainly consists of planning and organizing exhibitions.

What is a typical example of an exhibition that you have to organize and how would you describe your involvement in the process?

Let's see. The last time around, I was in charge of organizing a large exhibition. For that project, I worked in close collaboration with two artists. Prior to doing any work on the exhibition itself, I had to spend months researching and writing about the topic in an academic way - that's also part of my job.

Looking back, that exhibition touched upon all of the things I appreciate in relation to my work: I was allowed to work with art, think innovatively about new ways to exhibit art, and to challenge some of the staples of mainstream art theory by coming up with a fresh take on some themes. I find that rethinking the givens of the field is much easier when you're down there in the trenches and you have your hands on the actual works of art, rather than simply reading and writing about them at your desk.

I worked for 14 months on that exhibition before it all came together and we were able to open the doors to the public. When we finally did, the exhibition turned out to have quite the popular reach.

Yeah, it won some kind of award, didn't it? I think I read about that in the paper.

Yes, it did win an award as the best exhibition in its category.

Well, it was a pretty big deal, wasn't it?

No... Well, maybe for people in the art world, but it was nothing more than that.

Is there some more significant award that your exhibition could have won?

Well, no. In terms of awards as such, it was a really big deal. There's no doubt about that. But it wasn't significant for me. For my part, the most important thing was how people talked about the exhibition and wrote about it and shared their impressions of it with their friends. It was when I heard people commenting on how it affected them that it felt really significant to me - far more so than with the award.

What kind of activities did your work on that exhibition involve?

For one thing, I was in charge of making sure that we could borrow the works of art that we needed from other museums. We needed to bring them all together in order to make this special exhibition possible. Borrowing notable works of art can be difficult, even if you're a respectable institution like a recognized museum with a good standing. Once a work of art has attained a certain status, strict demands pertaining to handling, storage, and even climate control kick in. For that exhibition we borrowed some really significant pieces and it was my responsibility to make sure that we met these obligations, which was by no means an easy task.

That was the external part of my work. Internally at the museum, I also worked on the concept for this exhibition along with the two artists I mentioned before. We talked a lot about what we wanted to do with this exhibition and how we could come as near to that vision as possible.

Finally, since I was the art historian and theorist, I was the one who had to write the catalog for the exhibition, which is a sizeable pamphlet explaining the historical background of the works and themes as well as the theoretical and cultural significance of the works. It was a lot of plates that I had to keep spinning at once.

What part of the project did you enjoy the most?

The best thing was my discussions with the artists about where to place each of the works in the exhibition. I mean physically place, as in, "What artworks go in which rooms, and how do we pair them together?" All three of us were really dedicated to avoiding the obvious clichés that you usually see in the art world, such as pairing two works of art on the basis of some obvious similarity, "Oh look - there's a beach on both of these pictures. They must go together then!" We were nothing like that. The thin red lines that we were chasing were both thinner and redder. For us, it was about catching hold of the hidden undercurrents that the various works of art had in common.

When we finally opened the exhibition, it was like a fairy tale! It was completely magical to see all of what we had worked for come together and to see people enjoying themselves and complimenting it. It was an incredibly beautiful event. Telling you about this now makes me all nostalgic - oh, it makes me want to go back!

That does sound very inspiring. So is there a downside to working at a museum?

I do feel that I am missing more human contact in my job at times. I also feel as if my job does not have enough quick and immediate results in the course of a typical workweek. I can also become despondent if I feel that what we're doing is only relevant to a tiny elite and that it doesn't touch the lives of the public. That was one of the reasons I didn't want to go into pure research - I felt that it was too one-sided. I don't want to spend all of my time reading and writing academic papers. There are other important aspects of life that I want to be able to spend time on as well.

But in spite of all that, you're still drawn to working with art?

Well, the way I look at it, all objects and all words have meaning - a meaning that they have acquired through our use of them. We create this meaning through our actions, and the significance of our own role in creating that meaning is only rarely contemplated. Many artists are trying to work with those layers of meaning that we give to things in order to afford us a fresh view of the world - a reprieve from the tyranny of meaning that we would otherwise take for granted. I find that art can often help call our attention to how relative everything is - how everything that has value has been given that value, and how easily that value could change... [Anna's thought trails off.]

Look - I could sit here spamming art theory. But at the end of the day, I'm simply interested in art and visual imagery. I just naturally find it interesting when you're relating to the world in that way and expressing yourself through art. It's a free space where you're not primarily seeking to create value in a conventional sense. Art is not about concrete utility or uses, but about creating something which - as Oscar Wilde said - is really quite useless. But it's when you're working with it up close that you discover those nuances and twists that most people would otherwise overlook.

I've noticed that those "nuances and twists" also tend to come out in other areas of your life as well - in your home decorating and in how you dress, for example.

I think you're right about that. I do have some kind of sensitivity with regard to how my environment should look. I select my things carefully instead of just buying the same brands as everyone else or going for the same visual expression as everyone else. I prefer to give my things a personal touch by combining them in a way that will feel original. My apartment doesn't look like a carbon copy of everyone else's. It's important to me that it reflects who I am.

That disposition comes out in my style of clothing as well - people often say that something is "my style." I've been told that I don't dress to conform to some "type," but that somehow I always manage to do something with my clothing that makes it me. It's not because I try to be different from the crowd, or set myself apart from others. If I stand out, it's because I just wear what I like. That's the most important thing to me.

Given what you've told me, I now have a good idea about what jobs that suit you well. But at the other end of the spectrum, what is the worst job you have ever had?

I don't think I will be able to mention any job as "the worst job," because to me a job is not so much about the work as it's about the feeling of doing something meaningful and interesting. To me that's more important than status or salary or all kinds of other things.

However, back when I was a student, I worked as a telephone interviewer, calling people to register their opinions on all kinds of things - typically pertaining to market research. I wasn't so happy in that job, because I felt the questions were trivial and unimportant - I couldn't see the point of that.

I also worked in the bar of a luxury hotel once. Actually, that wasn't so bad because there wasn't much to do, so I didn't have to put in a lot of effort while I was there. I just had to show up and people would be happy.

Then I worked as an assistant in a private gallery for a time. But well, I thought my artistic judgment was better than the owner's. And since he was also my boss, that made it a bit difficult to work together. [Laughs.]

You wanted to have things in the gallery your way?

I did - that is perhaps a bit of a paradox, or at least a contrast to my usual personality. In my everyday life I'm very open and want to cooperate with others and give them space and an equal say. But when I lead and organize something, I tend to get into situations where I can be very hard-headed and dismissive if someone wants to do something that contradicts my overall vision for the project. Afterwards, I often think to myself that I should have been a little more diplomatic and soft - it's like all the friendliness and accommodation that I usually show just evaporates, and I really want to decide how a thing should be - typically if it relates to art. Even to this day at the museum, I still get into situations where I want to handle things a certain way, and if my bosses disagree I almost have to step back and remind myself that these people are my employers in order to hold my tongue and find a diplomatic tone.

I'm not a fan of democracy when it comes to work affairs - I'm more of a believer in meritocracy. I think people who demonstrate that they have a special competence in their field should be allowed to make decisions and wield a greater influence than the people who don't have those abilities. If someone dedicates a lot of their time to understanding a project and learning a lot about it, then they will also be the person who has the competencies to make the right decisions. If I needed surgery I would always find someone who had spent a lot of time understanding surgery to perform the procedure. I would not pretend to know as much as surgeons.

So how would you feel if you were the leader instead of the leaders? Is that something you would like to do?

Actually, I don't think things would be much better if I were the director of the museum. As I hinted before, I think I lack diplomatic tact in situations where something is really important to me. There's also the thing about being the director that you have to manage and motivate a lot of people, getting them to feel like they are part of the team and so on. In my case, I find that really hard to do if I don't have genuine respect for the other person. I have to mean it. But as a high-level manager, you have to be the leader of everyone, whether you like them or not. So I'd say that I'm not that interested in becoming a leader. I'd much rather just be free to work the way I want to work and with the people I want to work with.

***

ISFP Career Interview #1 © Sigurd Arild and IDR Labs International 2015.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and MBTI are trademarks of the MBTI Trust, Inc.

IDRLabs.com is an independent research venture, which has no affiliation with the MBTI Trust, Inc.

Cover image in the article commissioned for this publication from artist Georgios Magkakis.

***

IDRlabs offers the following Career Interviews:

FREE