Becoming an 'artist'

[The_Traveler]

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people insist on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another. natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly segregate ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.

You can't get away from labels because they are a summation of many characteristics that are often difficult to describe in ways that are meaningful.
At the very lowest level, the labels for color (red, blue, etc.) describe characteristics in ways that are not precise but are generally understood.
At a higher less clearly defined level, if someone describes him or herself as a Goldwater Republican, then you can get a general idea of what that person might believe about a variety of fiscal and governmental ideas.
If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist.

Perhaps the best, most generally descriptive yet imprecise label I have ever heard was one used by Fritz Zwicky, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who categorized some people as “spherical a______s” (“spherical” because they are a______s no matter which way one looks at them.)

 

[pixmedic]

labels man...
I don't get it.
why do so many people insist on being labeled something?
we insist on being labeled a race, or color, or religion, or nationality....
we pit ourselves against each another. natural light -vs- flash,
lifestyle -vs- formal posing, artist -vs- craftsman...as if all of these things were somehow mutually exclusive.
we willingly segregate ourselves, and then complain that we aren't unified.

just....be. and do. be who you are, and do what you love.
and at the end, when time has made moot the labels choke hold on your soul, and its noose around your neck lifted...Your works and deeds laid bare for history to judge...let those who come after label you, at a time when that label holds no power, no sway over you. and you can be free.

You can't get away from labels because they are a summation of many characteristics that are often difficult to describe in ways that are meaningful.
At the very lowest level, the labels for color (red, blue, etc.) describe characteristics in ways that are not precise but are generally understood.
At a higher less clearly defined level, if someone describes him or herself as a Goldwater Republican, then you can get a general idea of what that person might believe about a variety of fiscal and governmental ideas.
If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist.

Perhaps the best, most generally descriptive yet imprecise label I have ever heard was one used by Fritz Zwicky, an astrophysicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who categorized some people as “spherical a______s” (“spherical” because they are a______s no matter which way one looks at them.)

why should I seek a label? Because the difficulty of avoiding one is so great that I should simply give in and accept it and the prejudices that follow?
you said yourself that "If someone self describes as an artist, I take that to mean that he or she puts more emphasis on the creation of something new, rather than limit him/her self to the copying of work by others - an author rather than a copyist."
well, I say to you, with the utmost honesty and sincerity...
I do not wish that any opinion of me be formed merely from a self stated label.

would my work be any better for calling myself an artist?
should I call myself an artist, and thus prejudice people towards a different mindset than they might have otherwise had before viewing my work? such a term neither interests me, nor affects what I do or how I do it.
people will judge my work as they see it, not for what I call it, or myself.

Cant get away from labels?
As long as we believe that is the case, then it will be so.
perhaps you are right. perhaps we can never escape the inevitability of being labeled. The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty...
maybe, like labels, none of those things can ever be overcome by people...
But I will be damned if I don't try my best to do so anyway.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Sometimes I see a very "American" attitude towards art: anyone can be an artist. Anyone has something to say. Everyone is beautiful deep down inside. Nope. Sorry. Only selected few have got it, sadly. Because otherwise there is only one step to "Everything is art", which is of course only half a step from "There is no art".

Maybe I'm wrong but the attitude you seem to be describing doesn't come of as exclusively American. I think that it's more like a large portion of the modern and post-modern art world's beliefs. The belief or outlook however, is not that everyone "can" be an artist.. It's that everyone IS an artist, because everyone that does something involving expression of thoughts and ideas is making art. Now that's not to say that the art is profound or even worth paying attention to, but its still art.

Maybe we have different definitions of what art is.. but I don't believe that art has to be good or successful to be art.. I believe it just has to try and express something.

To explain my viewpoint.
A failed peace of art is still art, no? and if it is.. then what seperates the failed painting's of Van Gogh from the failed paintings of "The non-select masses" you describe? Why is an average joe's doodle in a math notebook any less art than "Master and Margarita"?

 

[The_Traveler]

@pixmedic

Language is labels,
You have put yourself in a category at least in one respect and that may not have a convenient label that comes to mind - it is a category.
You think most artists are poseurs and full of crap (your statements) - I may not have a name for it but that category exists.
Everyone thinks in labels, because that's the only way we can maintain knowledge about events.
I avoid certain foods because they are too spicy for my taste; I can't remember the taste exactly, but I remember them as 'too spicy'.

I see that you are trying to weight your argument by implying that labels are negative and using as examples labels that are accepted as negative -'The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty..."
Now I will remember this attempt about you as a generality, a label.

We can't avoid being labelled by others.
The more telling label are the ones that we apply to ourselves.

We, I, are always making comparisons between how we see people and the labels people apply to themselves, either actually or by the way they act,
For example, you think some people are pompous blowhards, obviously no one thinks that of themselves that way.
You see a 50 year old guy wearing knee-length shorts, a t-shirt with the name of a popular band and a ball cap turned backwards. He thinks he's cool and passing for a much younger guy. You think, or I do, that he should be embarrassed for himself and there's a good chance he is a fool.

 

[FeatherMonkey]

For me in this thread I see a lot of arguments about the tangible bit's that make art, yet surely it's the untangible bit's that make it art. It's the audience/viewer interaction which then allows a difference of opinion.

I'm actually a chef and have heard this argument so many times in my case is it science or art. For me it's both. Take the humble fish and chips which feasibly could be taken to a level of 'art' now to take it beyond just food would probably take the environment as a factor to. Which I think can be seen with art i.e. a sculpture somewhere else. In another context why is the photorealistic artist an artist, yet the photographer isn't?

So if it's the viewer/audience creating the art by the way they interpret and emotions evoked(Which all art does by the senses). So surely it's the untangible that makes it art. Someone said to me years ago maths is the highest form of art. I got it whilst there has been some comparison to language it's less symbolic it generally is untangible whilst we all know what 1 is it only lives in our head unlike cat. That was how I got it.

The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then? but I guess that's more philosophical.

 

[pixmedic]

Language is labels,
You have put yourself in a category at least in one respect and that may not have a convenient label that comes to mind - it is a category.
You think most artists are poseurs and full of crap (your statements) - I may not have a name for it but that category exists.
Everyone thinks in labels, because that's the only way we can maintain knowledge about events.
I avoid certain foods because they are too spicy for my taste; I can't remember the taste exactly, but I remember them as 'too spicy'.

I see that you are trying to weight your argument by implying that labels are negative and using as examples labels that are accepted as negative -'The same thing is often said about racism, hatred, dishonesty..."
Now I will remember this attempt about you as a generality, a label.

We can't avoid being labelled by others.
The more telling label are the ones that we apply to ourselves.

We, I, are always making comparisons between how we see people and the labels people apply to themselves, either actually or by the way they act,
For example, you think some people are pompous blowhards, obviously no one thinks that of themselves that way.
You see a 50 year old guy wearing knee-length shorts, a t-shirt with the name of a popular band and a ball cap turned backwards. He thinks he's cool and passing for a much younger guy. You think, or I do, that he should be embarrassed for himself and there's a good chance he is a fool.

interestingly enough,
I never said that we could avoid being labeled by others.
I see that you are trying to weight your argument by overlaying an objective to my words that is not there. (also, i do not remember using the words "full of crap" OR "poseurs" so i would appreciate if you are going to base your argument on turning my posts into a bash fest, at least have the curtsey to quote me properly)
you have entirely missed the message i was trying to convey.
thankfully, it seems others got it though. perhaps my language was too artistic for some.
Let me try it again, but articulated a little differently.

My problem is not a label that other people give to me.
my problem is that I do not wish to give myself a label, and thus affecting peoples opinions of me and my work right from the start.

 

[Designer]

The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then?

Yes, a work of art can be appreciated by only one person, and it's still art. If you were to create an outstanding dish of fish & chips, made as only you could envision it, it would still be enjoyable to you even if all you did was to eat it all by yourself.

 

[sashbar]

PS ***Of course, you can read (a proverbial) "Master and Margarita" (put any title here instead), and it will not change you at all. Well, then it is your problem, because in your world there is probably no difference between art and craft.

This last paragraph bothers me. Well, the last line, specifically. It suggests that if a piece of art doesn't speak to me, it's because I don't get it. And apparently, it's not just the piece that I don't get; I'm also too obtuse to even recognize it as 'art.' It ignores the idea that I wasn't changed because the piece of art failed to communicate, or because it communicated in a way I didn't like, or a message I didn't like, or that I DO recognize it as art but am just not particularly impressed.

I've read Faulkner and I don't like his work. I recognized his skill and his contribution, but it didn't change me. This isn't my "problem" - it's my subjective evaluation of his work and my conclusion that it doesn't communicate to me because I didn't like either his message or his method of delivery.

Quite frankly, this kind of creates an even fuzzier line between craftsmanship and art. Perhaps a beautiful piece of furniture, or building, or vase WAS created to communicate something, but you just don't know how to listen to the message. (For the record, I do believe this.)

I'm not trying to say that your definition is wrong. I might not agree with that last part, but I'm not trying to get you to change your definition. We are always going to define something like 'art' for ourselves, and it makes no sense to force the same objective standards on something so personal, so changeable and subjective. It's interesting to me to see where people draw lines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue over those lines. I just don't want to be told that it's my "problem" if I don't react to something that others think is a masterpiece, or if I have a

Prople do not have to understand and like any piece of art out there. But srprisingly often it is their problem. I, for instance, am seriously deaf to a lot of classical music and I know it is my problem, not Bethoven's or Mozart's. I know I would be much richer if I could undetstand it. And this is my problem as far as I am concerned.

 

[bribrius]

none of you will ever be artists. You spend too much time arguing on line. How would you have room in your heads for that creativity to spark? You are filling your minds with clutter. Would a artist live in the art? Or fill their heads with the argument and discussion of it?

(pot calling kettle black)

 

[pixmedic]

none of you will ever be artists. You spend too much time arguing on line. How would you have room in your heads for that creativity to spark? You are filling your minds with clutter. Would a artist live in the art? Or fill their heads with the argument and discussion of it?

(pot calling kettle black)

art doesn't exist.

 

[FeatherMonkey]

The real question for me is it still art with out an audience or viewer then?

Yes, a work of art can be appreciated by only one person, and it's still art. If you were to create an outstanding dish of fish & chips, made as only you could envision it, it would still be enjoyable to you even if all you did was to eat it all by yourself.

Then the answer to this thread is simple, gone on for too long and boils down to one phrase. 'What's one mans junk, is another's treasure'

 

[photoguy99]

Aww, c'mon. As I Lay Dying is a masterpiece of black comedy. By which I mean it's hilarious. Intruder in the Dust ain't half bad either.

 

[fjrabon]

It is subjective. I stick with the more stringent traditional sense of the word. Painting, sculpture, drawings, certain aspects of architecture, and to a extent i separate the art from the craft. I have seen photography that i may consider art but those photos are few and far between. That is because the nature of the medium leans strongly toward craft and technical skills. A brick layer can be both a tradesman and a craftsman. Laying the bricks doesn't make it art, but the final design and finished product might be art. Limr mentioned this above comparing literature. just like slapping paint on a canvas doesn't necessarily make it art. Totally subjective.

I tend to agree with bribrius, even more so, craft and art are in my view two completely different propositions, regardless of medium. It might be a painting or a brick wall, it does not really matter to me.

But this is the exact opposite of what Bribrius said, he said that the medium does matter when it comes to being a craft or an art, you're saying that it is about the vision, philosophy, etc and "It might be a painting or a brick wall, it does not really matter to me."

 

[Designer]

I don't know how you would make art without applying some craft to your construct.

Even a pasteup montage requires you to use some glue, but placing the items artfully requires an artful vision of the finished product.

 

[limr]

Aww, c'mon. As I Lay Dying is a masterpiece of black comedy. By which I mean it's hilarious. Intruder in the Dust ain't half bad either.

I read Light in August and am told that was probably not the best novel of his to start with. I'm open to giving him a second chance, but someone who likes Hemingway as much as I do will almost always have a much harder time dealing with Faulkner.