Becoming an 'artist'

[TammyCampbell]

Live in a tree for a while is a good bet too, or any den a coyote would prefer. Gets you closer to a subject to feel what they are feeling. No offense intended for cave or tree dwellers .. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[The_Traveler]

This has got a little far in the field but,

my original post was tongue-in-cheek but it certainly elicited some interesting responses.

I think there are really two valid kinds of artists; those who think of themselves that way because they really want to create and those that are thought of as artists by others.

All the rest, the fakers and the poseurs, in the long run really don't count.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

I'm not not implying that all artists are capable of good work; clearly that isn't true.
The intent may be there but the creativity, the talent, the skills may not be.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

IMO, what is important is that people try.

 

[acparsons]

I've been doing photography exhibitions for a year now, experiencing many forms of other art as a part of a collective. I've been going to about 20-30 exhibitions per year for a few years. Artist is a very subjective term. I would say that I am a bit below mediocre as a artist, but people seem to enjoy looking at my work. I have seen many "accomplished artist" exhibitions that have done nothing for me, especially that damn Tomato Soup can. Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work.

I am stepping outside of photography for my April show and showing Pop Art. As an artist, this is a big risk, especially since it is at City Hall. Everyone is an artist, but few can make a living at it. If you would like to become an artist go for it and see where it takes you, the most important thing is to enjoy the ride.

 

[bribrius]

This has got a little far in the field but,

my original post was tongue-in-cheek but it certainly elicited some interesting responses.

I think there are really two valid kinds of artists; those who think of themselves that way because they really want to create and those that are thought of as artists by others.

All the rest, the fakers and the poseurs, in the long run really don't count.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

I'm not not implying that all artists are capable of good work; clearly that isn't true.
The intent may be there but the creativity, the talent, the skills may not be.
They know it and that's the painful part for them.

IMO, what is important is that people try.

They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist. Being a member of a organization gets me automatically listed as a "artist" in fact i have to ask not to be listed that way to avoid it. To show any work, you get listed as a artist (even if it sucks). I was just invited to partake in a exhibition (they have open slots) which automatically would list me as a artist for the exhibition. But really, it is filling open slots. If i submitted to a pay to play gallery i would be listed as a artist there, even if my only ability was to cough up the money to pay to play.
it is a label. They have to have something to call you. There are some real artists around here. My work doesn't hold a candle to theirs. Don't even pretend or try to. I just take photos. But any involvement automatically lists me as a artist. Which gets me involved in these things. Newletters, invitations, emails, member meetings, showings blah blah blah.. Which lists me as a artists more. It is a chain reaction. Basically to fill a space on a line with SOMETHING. I have thought of taking up painting again more or maybe acrylics just so i dont feel like a -hole seeing my name listed.

 

[Designer]

You seem to be obsessing over the term.

Why?

 

[bribrius]

You seem to be obsessing over the term.

Why?

I dislike being called one.

 

[pgriz]

You seem to be obsessing over the term.

Why?

I dislike being called one.

Really depends on who's doing the calling. The amount of weight I'd give that depends much on how well they know you.

 

[bribrius]

You seem to be obsessing over the term.

Why?

I dislike being called one.

Really depends on who's doing the calling. The amount of weight I'd give that depends much on how well they know you.

meh. True i suppose. labels help categorize. For me the problem is if i accept such a label so readily and i lack the merit to back up such a label it really makes me the other "p" label above. (poseur). I much prefer "untitled" as last i checked i wasn't no Vincent vangogh and no title seems a much safer route..

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work.

^This. So much this!!

 

[The_Traveler]

Everything is art and nothing is art, as it is in the mind of the person making the art and the interpretation of the person looking at the work.

^This. So much this!!

Somewhere here had a signature something like 'Art is in the Intent' and I agree with acparsons and W.Y.Photo that nothing much is important except in the intent of the person to create, to make 'art'.
How it appears to anyone else is a bit irrelevant.
If one wants to make art, that intent will drive creativity.

 

[sm4him]

They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.

I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."

Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.

To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.

I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."

 

[W.Y.Photo]

They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.

I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."

Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.

To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.

I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."

I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...

What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.

This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)

 

[The_Traveler]

or jealousy

 

[kdthomas]

Oh heck, I'll chime in FWIW ...

I consider myself an artist. I'm just a novice artist, with more misses than hits (but I do have hits ). The medium I work in is photography. There are things I like and don't like, but I think that, at the end of the day, if you wind up with an image that pleases your client (even if the client is yourself) then you've succeeded, and it's something to be proud of.

Despite my mistakes, and the a**-kickings I get trying to do stock, I believe I'm intelligent and capable and continually improving, and that I have a fairly decent chunk of potential. The images that are still in my mind waiting to be created are very bold and creative. I just need to build the skill and intuition to have more hits than misses while getting them into the camera, and I'm putting in my time to get that skill and intuition.

Maybe I'll have gallery showings, maybe I'll shoot for Vogue. Or maybe I'll scratch out a few nickels doing sit-n-grins in the suburbs. Soon (at age 47!) I may even take a year off, move into a crappy loft and make a lunatic hail-mary shot at "making it". As the song says, "Sometimes you're ahead, sometimes you're behind. The race is long and in the end it's only with yourself". Stephen King used to have a nail in his apartment wall next to his desk that he hung all his rejection letters on.

And I love his definition of "talent": He said: If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented. He goes on to say further down: And if you're not succeeding, you should know when to quit. Also: But if everyone - or even most everyone - is criticizing something different, you can safely disregard what all of them say.

And I'll hold my hand up on the BW conversion charge. I do too much of that. But I do like B&W better.

 

[DanOstergren]

They hand out the title way to easy. Because i take a photo or paint a painting it makes me a artist.

I find it interesting how many people think this, how much "import" is given to the title of "artist."

Personally, I don't give "artist" as a title the same sort of significance, as, say "brain surgeon," which suggest that a person is highly trained and exceptionally qualified to be cutting open people's head and operating on them.

To me, "artist" is more akin to "athlete." It's just something you are, but it doesn't suggest a level of skill.
I've seen athletes who just aren't that skilled--Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards comes to mind. He was an Olympic athlete…and he was…well, terrible seems like such a strong term.

I like Lew's notion that it is the "intent to make art" that is important.
If they are especially GOOD at their intents, I tend to call those people, "highly gifted artists."

I think the mentality stems from the idea that a person can be called out or insulted by saying they aren't what they happen to be...

What I mean is that its similar to how a person who is absolutely horrible or revolting, like a sociopath or serial killer, is said to be "not human" or a person who shows no compassion or care for other's is told they are not a person anymore.
These people are obviously still people, they are still human beings. Just in such a terrible way that noone wishes to refer to them as such as they are considered to degrade the idea of such a thing.

This type of mentality arises in Art as well, people see something they dislike in art and say "That's not Art" because it ruins their mental picture of what art should be; they see an artist who doesn't fit their model of artists so they say: "oh, he's not an artist". Their statements, while not being factual, aren't really claims as much as they are expressions of distaste. (at least in my opinion)

This. Exactly this.