You're making a ton of assumptions here. First, you assume that the human ego is a concept and therefore it's an illusion. In fact, there's nothing you can point to as proof that the ego is merely an illusion for the simple fact that no one has ever functioned without one. It's impossible. You wouldn't bother to get out of bed in the morning or feed yourself or find a job without an ego. To suppose that it's an illusion without evidence to support that assertion makes no sense.
Next you assume that the ego is somehow antithetical to artistic endeavor because the ego separates us from the world. That too is an unsupportable argument. The ego was created by the world as part of us. We, along with our egos, are part of this world. It's not keeping us from appreciating the world in some mystical way.
I would accept that during the act of artistic creation one can feel more connected with the world around them. But even so, why pick on the ego? One can make great art and have a perfectly functioning ego at the same time. In fact, you wouldn't be able to make any art, good or bad, without one.
You are messing up words with reality, which actually easily happens in this kind of debate.
And we come to a fundamental problem here - we are trying to express something with words and symbols, but the use of words and symbols restricts us to the meaning of these words which is restricted again.
If we talk of "ego" or "my ego / myself" we have something in mind which is a symbolic abstraction as well.
We often tend to be glued to this abstraction or concept as I'd call it.
Of course we have an ego, no sane person could deny that.
But the words we use to describe it and the way we think about it is not the whole truth of what is behind this thing we try to capture with the word ego.
So - this is about the truth behind the words so to say and about an attitude which accepts that there is something beyond our capabilities of symbolization and world reproduction inside our brain.
The problem is not, that there is something which we name ego and which makes sense to be named.
The problem is our concepts of it, the idea of "I" in the whole process.
The most complicated this becomes in the current discussion on intellectual property.
Basically we need some kind of concept of model for this because artists need to feed their kids too.
But from a more absolute point of view the idea is complete rubbish, like the idea of an ego.
My idea here basically is to point to another aspect of reality and our relation to it,
which evades concepts and ideas, and which can help us in the artistic process.
One result of this could be to find the right moment to stop bothering about gear or perfection or
ego or success or control or whatever, because something different appears to be more important (which is different in every case).
The idea of an "ego" who is "controlling" the process and being the "master" of the work is such a thing too which can easily become a burden if you want to accomplish something which has more substance then a sorry effort.
Reviewing this again after posting I think I should point out that this is not about some crazy or esoteric ideas - its about our relation to our concepts and ideas of ourselves, the artistic process and the world as a whole.
Its just good to step back at times and release the controlling grip of our mind and hands from our art, our ideas about other people or anything else and just let something happen