What is an Artist?

Does art exist in a vacuum or must it be shared and experienced?
If your work never reaches another soul can it still be considered art?

An argument can be made that everyone is an artist, if you've ever written prose or made a drawing, but certainly all art is not created equal.

Often it seems to call oneself an artist is to invite a judgement of pretentiousness. I suppose I must be an artist, for a few years now my goal in life has simply been to create something beautiful before I die. Driven not by fame or money but simply to create.

I imagine it would be gratifying to have a positive impact on someone else's life through my labor. Then I could proudly call myself an artist.

What does being an artist mean to you? Do you consider yourself an artist?

I think it's enough to call one's self an artist if you have a deeply rooted passion for what you do to make art, and that you have a distinct and unique vision behind it.

Those individuals who make art just to put a cover on a cereal-box, or a re-brand cover on an old animated kids movie, may have a very generic style of artistry. You could even say those guys are hard to tell apart based on their styles. But they're still artists none-the-less because they know how to draw, they know how to breath life into an image. And hopefully they find enjoyment in what they do.

As for the artwork itself, there can be many interpretations as to whether it really is art or not. Often times when we use the term "artistic," there's a certain connotation that that word carries. "Art film" carries another meaning, which separates it from other film. Art piece is yet another: which suggests that there is a deeper meaning and purpose behind a particular art museum installation or sculpture that is usually seen.

But artwork, and art in general, I think can best be boiled down to "anything that you bring forth from your imagination into the real world, or any unique interpretation you make based upon what already exists in the world: either through photography, painting, sculpture, interior design, architecture, images created form all sorts of materials and minerals, music, stage plays and productions, and so on and so forth."

This of course allows for any number of random photographs to be considered art. But because one's own skill can allow for one photograph (that took 3 seconds to take) to look magnificent, while another photograph (that also took 3 seconds to take) by another person can look like crap, there's really no easy way to differentiate between the two in a short and simple definition. Same thing with paintings and drawings. Whether or not a piece of art "speaks" to you or not, or is skillfully rendered or not, should not devalue it, nor take away its status as a piece of art nonetheless.

Yes there can be pretentiousness when it comes to "Art." But there doesn't have to be.

I create art in a couple of different ways, but I'm certainly no expert. I understand a lot more concepts than I used to, and I think I'm beginning to understand a lot of little tricks that people often don't notice at first: which will help make my art better. And I'm always trying to scrutinize my work (I'm often my toughest critic) in order to improve it in whatever ways I can.

As for why I make what I make: I make what I make because I feel like if I don't, then no one else will. I also feel that I have the know-how to do my ideas justice and to present them in the best way possible. And I make what I make because I hope that my ideas and my creations will bring some joy and excitement to other people, especially kids, as well as teens and adults who are young at heart.

That last part is pretty sappy, sure. But it's still true.

The problem with such a broad generalization of artist is that my 5 year old nephew is an artist under those terms. But he has no understanding he is trying to show other people, no fog he is trying to lift from our minds. He's just scribbled the sun and some trees. If everyone is an artist then the label becomes completely meaningless.

I think there is an innate desire in all of us to share ourselves.
We are social animals. But I think there is a distinction somewhere.. a motivation of why we share what we do.

More often than not it's narcissism. Posting selfies, posting some clever insight to show how clever we are. Look at me, give me your attention and adoration and respect.

I think a real artist needs to look outside of themselves. To look to others and find something meaningful to a particular demographic.

If your art exists merely to gratify yourself it's tantamount to masturbation. Somehow I feel art is suppose to capture something, an essence that resonates with other people.

Historically, the work "artist" indicated a measure of skill and training, and originally was used to refer to someone who was formally trained as opposed to self-taught, and the "arts" were things that required training and study.

The word that came to be used for people who did things for the love of them, rather than as a profession, was: "amateur". However, that word has now almost turned into an insult and somehow conveys that the person isn't all that good.

An artist is someone who makes and creates through care and skill, with directed intention and will. Passion makes you an amateur (by definition); practice, the attainment and skill, and careful attention to detail make you an artist. A paycheck makes you a professional.

I believe that if something has the power to resonate emotionally with its audience, be it a painting, a film, or a work of prose, then it's art. If something is powerful enough to truly make me feel, I consider it art.

And I don't mean this in just a serious, somber sort of way, either.

sfoster said:

If your work never reaches another soul can it still be considered art?

Click to expand...

By definition, "no"! Unless other people see it then no one can "consider" it anything (let alone art), except of course the person who created it. The term "art" is a value judgement as much as anything, a random pile of bricks or an unmade bed is generally not "art", although they can be, depending on context. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of consensus and the creator alone obviously cannot form a consensus!

G

sfoster said:

If your work never reaches another soul can it still be considered art?

Click to expand...

AudioPostExpert said:

By definition, "no"!

Click to expand...

AudioPostExpert said:

By definition

Click to expand...

AudioPostExpert said:

definition

Click to expand...

AudioPostExpert said:

definition

Click to expand...

art

ärt/
noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts

1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.



I fail to see how it requires reaching other people to magically become art. What is it before that? Gobbledy-Gook? Let's start calling it gobbledy-gook then. Obviously the examples you provided aren't art, but if someone never shows another person their painting, I would still consider it art. Perhaps "undiscovered art"

mussonman said:

What is it before that? Gobbledy-Gook? Let's start calling it gobbledy-gook then.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you're just being obtuse? You can call it anything you want but for it to be "considered" something requires (BY DEFINITION!) that at least some people have actually considered it!

mussonman said:

Obviously the examples you provided aren't art ...

Click to expand...

The only thing obvious here is that you need to "consider" more carefully before you make blithe comments ridiculing others but what is actually your personal ignorance!

"My Bed" (AKA Tracy's Bed or Unmade Bed) - Tracy Emin - 1999, Shortlisted for the Turner Prize.

"Equivalent VIII" (AKA The Bricks or Pile of Bricks) - Carl Andre -1966, "it is perhaps one of the best known works of modern art in the Collection" - Tate Modern (Owner).

G