How Artists Work Together

How do artists ever collaborate?

What breaks endless cycles of "My intuition says X.", "Oh yeah? Well my intuition says Y." "Oh yeah? My intuition says that you're a jerk." ...?
Do they create standards, however vague, that they can all work towards? ("We're going for a an edgy look.")
Do they agree on a moderator that can make final decisions? ("I think Smee's design is more edgy than Tayven's, so Smee's wins.")
Do they just let their egos die?
When they do let their egos die, do they still flow the same? (That is, when you allow another's choice to prevail over your own
Do they just never get anything done in a team?
Do they just work alone?

But most of all:

How do programmer/artists ever work together? Do the answers to the above apply?

Programmers and artists work together constantly in the computer game industry. Fortunately, they usually have very different work to do. They might disagree on all sorts of underlying issues ("Orcs should be big!" "Orcs should be runts!"), but the same applies to any two people. At the end of the day, the division of labor is pretty obvious, so they can get on with what they need to do.

Different collaborative teams work together in different ways. Sometimes there is one dominant person who always makes the big decisions; sometimes there is equal give-and-take; sometimes teams take votes. It is probably not possible for two or more people to work together if have radically different visions and are unwilling to compromise. Successful collaboration always requires respect and trust of one another.

As for "ego", that can mean a lot of different things. One who believes "I am always right" or "This work is a reflection of me and me only" would not be a good collaborator, but neither would someone who believes "I am never right--I'll just do as I'm told". There is no need to let one's ego "die", but don't let ego work against making the collaborative work the best it can be.

I think programming is much more conducive to collaboration that many forms of "art". PairProgramming in particular is an effective means of writing software, but pairs wouldn't work so well for painting or writing poetry. There is a big difference between developing something that has to work correctly and developing something that has to touch someone's soul. The latter requires a very personal touch. Most collaborative art forms involve some separation of responsibilities: for example, songwriting teams where one person does the music and another does the lyrics, or comedy screenwriting teams where one person writes the story and someone else adds the jokes.

During the Renaissance artists would often let students paint sections or discrete objects on the canvas. Michealangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael did it as students for their teachers and later let their students do it on some of their works

Here's a PairProgramming exercize suitable for an introductory class or proof-of-concept session: http://www.xpsd.com/PairDraw

In many forms of art (in particular the performing and/or dramatic arts), an ensemble of more than a few people has someone clearly in charge. Film, TV, and stage productions all have a director who is responsible for the quality of the final product; orchestras and other large music ensembles have conductors. (Large marching bands have multiple conductors; each section is led by a section conductor, who in turn are led by a master conductor. Musicians are supposed to only watch their section conductor). In some cases, the lead function is separate from the other performers (most but not all directors do not star in their films, or operate cameras, or do anything else; conductors do not simultaneously play an instrument in the orchestras they lead).

For smaller ensembles; it is common for the leader to also be a player/participant; in a string quartet the first violinist is traditionally the "conductor" for the group. Some small ensembles function without a clear leader; many rock bands and pop music acts function in this way.

It should be noted that I'm describing the artistic leader, who may or may not control the purse strings and have hire/fire authority. For most dramatic productions, the producer (he who pays the bills) is a different person than (and the boss of) the director. (This also applies in programming, one of the dicta of FredBrooks is that except on very small projects, the chief architect and team leader ought to be different individuals).

Where there is a clear hierarchy, there is a clear method of resolving conflicts. Where there isn't, the artists/whoever have to "work it out", and some times they don't. Which is why you occasionally hear about bands breaking up, etc. (not the only reason certainly).