Becoming an 'artist'

[bribrius]

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.

you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada. Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.

 

[photoguy99]

There are at least two important changes that have occurred in about the last 100 years with Art.

The first is the evolution of our conception of Art toward the "concept". Fabrication of.. pretty much anything is recognized as straightforward. Photography helped point the way here, but some excellent forgers pointed out that paintings are, ultimately, not about craftsmanship. If Vermeer is about his amazing brushwork, then van Meergerens should be just as valuable, and they are not. And so on. Therefore Art pretty much has to be about the Idea, not the Object, not the making of the thing.

The second is that, hand in hand with this, the general culture has tended to shift toward a false interpretation of the first thing. We see nonsense like "art is all just subjective" thrown around. We see people saying stuff like "well, to me, Art is really..." as if Art were some sort of do-it-yourself word. Art is a social construct, with an evolving definition, with broad scope and with, yes, a personal element. So is Spanish, and we don't see people saying "well, Spanish is all just subjective anyways" and "what Spanish is to ME..".

That's not QUITE right. My five year old, I will admit, sometimes refers to her nonsense words as "my kind of Spanish for cat" or whatever. But she's five.

Anyways, the first leads the second, and the second leads to the false notion that Art is whatever anyone wants it to be.

 

[pgriz]

Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food". Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth? Does putting something in your mouth make it food? What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"? Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"? Is the concept of "food" a social construct?



) )

 

[bribrius]

Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food". Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth? Does putting something in your mouth make it food? What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"? Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"? Is the concept of "food" a social construct?



) )

Okay, i will start. I don't consider soda to be food. I don't even know how people can drink that chit.

 

[pgriz]

You know, Brian, that Coca-Cola will strongly disagree with you. There's a recent discussion about whether Kraft cheese slices are "food", with Kraft claiming that it's part of a "nutritionally-balanced diet", and a lot of people vociferously disagreeing with that.

 

[sm4him]

Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food". Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth? Does putting something in your mouth make it food? What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"? Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"? Is the concept of "food" a social construct?

) )

 

[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.

you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada. Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.

Nope, I don't see there as ever being any sort of bar for what art or what an artist is. To me, art is any form of personal expression. Talent and skill have nothing to do with it. Artists have been making masterpieces and total failures for as long as humans have been drawing on cave walls, singing, dancing and drumming around fires. As well, what I see as a masterpiece another could see as utter crap, or the other way around. Just because myself or anyone else thinks someone's art is total crap doesn't mean that person is not an artist. You for example may not see yourself as an artist, but you still take photos that display your personal esthetic; you may hate the term, but that makes you an artist. The day you stop being an artist is the day you stop doing anything whatsoever that displays your personal esthetic.

 

[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)

This. Exactly this.

you don't wonder if the bar for what is art has been lowered significantly though? I mean what if someone has a piece that really just flat out sucks. It isn't a matter of like or dislike (you can dislike a piece and still appreciate the artists vision and talent). I mean it is something like a five year old would come up with. And the artist, may have no training, no schooling, no experience, nada. Shouldn't their be SOME basic criteria for what a artist is? Some level of talent? Some skill? Some vision and foresight? It seems a title given away, not on merit or earned at all, not based on skill or achievement or creativity. Just given away to anyone that comes up with anything.

I don't think the bar can be lowered for what a dog is, what a cat is, or what a computer is.... So no I don't think the bar can be lowered for what an artist is.

As Dan pointed out there is a criteria... It's just not criteria based off of any sort of merit. You don't need merit or training to be an artist, you just need to make art.

You regard the term artist too highly. Calling someone an artist isn't like claiming them to be a master, its just calling them what they are, whether they are good at art has no bearing on them being artists.

It's like calling a person driving a vehicle a driver, whether its their first time behind the wheel or their millionth time, whether they are a good driver or a terrible driver, they are still the person driving the freaking car! They don't earn the status of driver through learning to drive, they get it by sitting behind the wheel and turning the ignition. The act of driving requires nothing but simply acting to make the car move. It's not suddenly labeled as something other than "driving" when an unskilled operator is behind the wheel.

 

[otherprof]

So now that I wear glasses, does that mean I have more arteest cred? Is that like street cred?

Only if you adopt a beret and grow a goatee.

A goatee and an ironic mustache. Might I suggest...handlebar?

YES!

Jason, your bias is showing. And don't forget that just because it looks good on you, doesn't mean that everyone's features will be enhanced by this. After all, there are standards to be maintained. Especially if it is the "arteeest" look.

you cant go wrong with a mustache.
its a timeless classic staple of the Arteest.
the more mustache wax it takes to hold the 'stache in place, the more artistic you are.

Hence the relative scarcity of high-level women artists. Hair, hair!!

 

[pgriz]

If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone. On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery. Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear. So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.

 

[pixmedic]

If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone. On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery. Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear. So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.

one only has to take a sampling of porn over the last 50 years to understand the manner in which hair as a social construct has changed.

 

[table1349]

If hair is the criteria for being an artist, then women will easily outweight the men, on the basis of hair mass alone. On the other hand, artists like Frida Kahlo cultivated quite a decent amount of facial shrubbery. Of course, societal pressures being what they are, the majority of women (whether artists or not) usually made theirs disappear. So that basically short-changes any insight we may have into whether the possession of a mustache enhances or encumbers the artistic bent of the bearer.

one only has to take a sampling of porn over the last 50 years to understand the manner in which hair as a social construct has changed.

Now that sounds like a modern day graduate thesis if I ever heard one, and I have heard more than one.

 

[table1349]

Next, just for giggles, let's debate the meaning of "food". Is food only the stuff you put in your mouth? Does putting something in your mouth make it food? What level of nutrition does "food" have to have to be considered "food"? Is nutrition even relevant when discussing "food"? Is the concept of "food" a social construct?



) )

Okay, i will start. I don't consider soda to be food. I don't even know how people can drink that chit.

Beans, beans, the musical fruit:
The more you eat, the more you toot! [or poot]
The more you toot, the better you feel,
So let's have beans for every meal!

I ate my beans and they were loaded,
Went to bed and they exploded!

Beans, beans, are good for your heart!
The more you eat, the more you fart!
The more you fart, the better you feel,
So let's have beans for every meal!

Beans, beans, the musical fruit,
The more you eat, the more you toot,
The more you toot, the better you feel,
So lift up your leg and let one squeal!


Beans are power food.

 

[table1349]

The problem with you guys is that you just don't have what it takes to be an Artist..................
But I can help!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

There, now you have an Artistic License. Fill it in and you are good to go as an Artist.

 

[sashbar]

I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art. This is official.