Definition of an artist

Aafke

What defines an artist (Musician, actor, writer or visual artist) to be one?
I believe there is no closing definition but I would like to hear your opinion about this subject...

I'll give a start:

"The craftsmanship of an artist begins where the craftsmanship of most people end"

Please lets me hear yours.

brianlux

I believe art is any form of expression that comes from inside an individual without conscious effort to imitate. Surely most art is influenced by other art and rarely if ever is any form or work of art truly groundbreaking or without influence, but because no one can steal an individual's inner self, all art is unique.

“If you want to really hurt you parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.” -Kurt Vonnegut

Hobbes

Because it's topical...

"Yeah, great art is about conflict and pain and guilt and longing and love disguised as sex, and sex disguised as love..." -Lester Bangs in Almost Famous

JonnyPistachio

Great post Brian. And cool quote as the cherry on top.
I sat here for a few minutes contemplating my response, and I just dont have the words... (says the self proclaimed writer haha)

gimmesometruth27

i love that vonnegut quote.

i write, i write music part time, but i do not consider myself an artist. mostly because i am not proud of a lot of what i have written.

Aafke

brianlux said:

I believe art is any form of expression that comes from inside an individual without conscious effort to imitate. Surely most art is influenced by other art and rarely if ever is any form or work of art truly groundbreaking or without influence, but because no one can steal an individual's inner self, all art is unique.

“If you want to really hurt you parents, and you don't have the nerve to be gay, the least you can do is go into the arts. I'm not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable. Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven's sake. Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem. Do it as well as you possible can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.” -Kurt Vonnegut

I do completely agree with you about the fact that all forms off art are an expression off the inner self off the maker. But that isn't my question. I'm looking for the difference between an amateur and an artist.

gimmesometruth27

that is easy.

amateur does not make a living doing their art. professional artist does.

dankind

Aafke

In theory, you are right, Gimme. Although most artist can't make a living out off it. But I'm looking for the artistic difference between an amateur and an artist, if there is any...

JonnyPistachio

I didnt realize the question was about the difference between amateur and professional.
I'm not sure that really matters either, because now you're getting into how the art is accepted or perceived (not about its inception, its inspiration/influences, or its meaning)

Rod, i'd agree to a point, but arent there artists who became famous or successful long after their creations were made...even some after they died?

gimmesometruth27

good point JP. a lot of the masters were in poverty in life and their pieces sold for millions after they died.

brianlux

Aafke said:

In theory, you are right, Gimme. Although most artist can't make a living out off it. But I'm looking for the artistic difference between an amateur and an artist, if there is any...

I'm not sure there is one.

am·a·teur: a person who engages in a pursuit... on an unpaid basis.

The amazing jazz pianist, Cecil Taylor spent much of his productive years making money (meager earning, he was quite poor then) washing dishing despite having made some recordings. So technically he was, early on, an amateur but all of his recordings are, without a doubt, great works of art.

Aafke

This subject is an old one for me. It started twenty years ago. It started on a art academy. So therefor the definision was quite speciffic, if you can't live from your art, do you have the right to call yourself an artist? The definition I started this tread with, was one that I could remember, from back than. While most off those students from back than, can't live from their art, and have other jobs to make a living, most off them still consider themselves artists. Making a living out off it therefor is probably not a great definition. Maybe the only difference between an amateur and an artist is the attempt off making a living out off art.

JonnyPistachio

Aafke said:

This subject is an old one for me. It started twenty years ago. It started on a art academy. So therefor the definision was quite speciffic, if you can't live from your art, do you have the right to call yourself an artist? The definition I started this tread with, was one that I could remember, from back than. While most off those students from back than, can't live from their art, and have other jobs to make a living, most off them still consider themselves artists. Making a living out off it therefor is probably not a great definition. Maybe the only difference between an amateur and an artist is the attempt off making a living out off art.

I dont think there's a specific way to define it in these terms. You just got me thinking though -- of possibly the amount of time and dedication the artist has invested in their art (perhaps)... I'd say its up to the individual how they classify themselves. I wrote a novel and I consider myself an amateur. I paint sometimes...amateur....but I am also a musician...also amateur...but I have aspirations of being a professional writer. But I have a lot to learn and I need to become more dedicated to it before that will ever happen.

Aafke

I do agree with you, every person has its own definition off what makes someone an artist. That's what I like about the subject. I do like to debate, and sharpen my own definition, while doing so.
I'm sure we wouldn't find a definition everyone agrees with. Luckily...

The subject came up for me again, when i started posting some off my visual pieces on this forum. When I was kicked out of the art academy, I decided, that I wasn't gonna be an artist after all. So I have found myself an other way off earning a living. But the need to express myself visually remained. without being arrogant, I do have some talent for it. But I don't feel the need to make a living out off it. As for my poetry, Amateur for shore... But for the visual arts, I don't know, just yet...

Jason P

this ...

hedonist

Hey! I didn't know it took nerve to be gay

I'm not sure "making a living off of it" is a fair assessment of being an artist. Someone can be a baker but not choose that path as a career. Same could be said for writing, painting, and on.

Anyway...calling oneself anything is that person's prerogative. Hell, I've heard "musicians" call themselves such when they can barely sing without technical assistance.

Good thread, by the way!

Hobbes

The debate is amateur artist vs. professional artist. One makes a living, but they are both artists. A sports car vs. a broke down car. They are still both cars, no? Art is no less art if it's tucked away in some attic or if it's hanging in the Louvre. Same for the artist. Emily Dickinson, Vincent van Gogh, both artists, but neither appreciated during their lifetimes.

Aafke

Hobbes said:

The debate is amateur artist vs. professional artist. One makes a living, but they are both artists. A sports car vs. a broke down car. They are still both cars, no? Art is no less art if it's tucked away in some attic or if it's hanging in the Louvre. Same for the artist. Emily Dickinson, Vincent van Gogh, both artists, but neither appreciated during their lifetimes.

True, but what has made that Dickinson and van Gogh, now a days, are seen as great artist, but others out off their days, who maybe tried as hard as they did, are completely forgotten by now?

Hobbes

Yes, they are great artists and the others, unknown artists. Both still artists. It is the secondary element of the viewer that decides what is great art and what is not. By this, one could say that art is a shared experience, artist and viewer. But the artist is just that, an artist.

backseatLover12

Interesting discussion.

To me, if you like to create, you are an artist. That's all.

Otherwise, I really dislike labels. So I tell people that I enjoy creating lots of things.

chadwick

artists are driven with a mind boggling sense of creativity. you are either insane with it or you are not. it is who you are & why you are. the mentally insane artist is brilliant. their brain & spirit race at light speeds. often (or not) they are substance abusers doing mass amounts of whatever & whipping out amazing work with their craft

it is a hoot

SD48277

backseatLover12 said:

Interesting discussion.

To me, if you like to create, you are an artist. That's all.

Otherwise, I really dislike labels. So I tell people that I enjoy creating lots of things.

I like this description.

I think that, as time goes on, the definition of artist, as well as art, changes. For a long time there was (and maybe still is) a debate about whether photography was considered art. Yet, there are plenty of exhibitions of photography today. Within the past ten years, or so, there have been exhibitions of amazing quilts. Maybe not considered high art, but one look at them and you realize that a lot of time, creativity, and technique went into creating them. It's probably best not to have too strict a definition of what is art or who is an artist; this will allow for cool shit to be created and for art to evolve.

hedonist

Last night, I was listening to a bit of Mozart. Have loved his music since I knew what music was. To me, the man was beyond an artist; he was a genius. To create something so overwhelming to bring tears and the sweetest, simplest joy to some unknown across the planet and hundreds of years after composing it?

So, while listening (understatement)...I thought of this thread.

Sure, art's subjective, but...is it far-fetched for me to call bullshit on some so-called creations?

Like...painting a canvas all-black.

Or the dude who shoots paint out of his ass.

JonnyPistachio

) oh man hedonist.. LOL...that helps to add perspective...mentioning Mozart and the ass painter in the same breath! too funny.

These same things got me thinking too -- I recall an enormous sculpture made out of old car tires in college. I thought it was terrible. But it really was art.

backseatLover12

Although Mozart was indeed a genius, and most of society would back that up, I still think that art is purely subjective. I don't think it should judged for award academies, I don't think that we should put an artist down for a paint splatter (even though a child could do abstract as well), I think we should appreciate that we can all create in our own way and we can call it art. Because it is.

And I've seen art made out of elephant dung. Some say it's not art, but to the person who created it, he/she thinks of it as his art. And who's to deny that? There's beauty in it all, but we choose to see what we consider to be beauty. That's why it is so personal and subjective.

backseatLover12

My avatar, for instance just looks like a skull. Big deal, right? Look closer and you'll see that it's too children on a dock with 2 balloons and some birds flying overhead. It's all in the what you choose to see that makes art. It doesn't mean that someone's lackluster art isn't art!

Aafke

The conceptual artist Manzoni canned his own shit and sold it asThe Artist's Shit. Is that art? What I do question is why everyone is willing to agree that Mozart is a great artist, but gives modern art a lot less credit. Is it culture and history that dictates what we consider art? Is sometimes a society not ready for some art like van Gogh? Is that what is happening with the conceptual art at the moment?

FrankieG

Artist (n): one who creates art.

You can define art however you want ha

hedonist

Aafke said:

The conceptual artist Manzoni canned his own shit and sold it asThe Artist's Shit. Is that art? What I do question is why everyone is willing to agree that Mozart is a great artist, but gives modern art a lot less credit. Is it culture and history that dictates what we consider art? Is sometimes a society not ready for some art like van Gogh? Is that what is happening with the conceptual art at the moment?

Who said modern art is given less credit? I just happen to think squirting paint out of your ass (or your eyeball, as I've read of as well) may be highly creative, but I find it ridiculous and simply don't value it.

But that's me. If someone else appreciates that, or is willing to pay for it (or pay for canned shit, for that matter), further reinforces my "it's all subjective" view.

I think FrankieG up there put it best, simply so.

JonnyPistachio

backseatLover12 said:

My avatar, for instance just looks like a skull. Big deal, right? Look closer and you'll see that it's too children on a dock with 2 balloons and some birds flying overhead. It's all in the what you choose to see that makes art. It doesn't mean that someone's lackluster art isn't art!

oh, thats fucking cool. I never noticed that!