Welcome to a2k, musik queen!
Howdy people,
Is and artist born or made? What makes an Artist an Artist?
Philosophy aside an artist is made not born. You can be born artistic, meaning to have artistic abilities, but you cannot be born an artist, because Artist is a title. Artist like any other title is earned. People are not born programmers or doctors ("That guys a born athlete," is a saying not an actuality), they must earn their titles through various means, whether education or some other route. The same applies to Artists. I break down the variations of the Artist title like this:
Artistic: One who has the ability to make art.
Amateur Artist: One who makes art but communication is arbitrary.
Artist: One who makes art that communicates specifically.
Master: One who makes art that communicates specifically and has been received.
Icon: One who makes art that communicates arbitrarily but has been received.
I bring up communication in my assessments because it really is a key factor to what makes art, art. Art in the end is always some kind of expression (or lack there of) and an expression is a tool to communicate. The search for meaning in a piece is a necessity for the audience. If someone "says" something to you, you must determine the meaning of the expression. This brings me to critics and critical analysis. These are the foundations of Art. Critics serve as the educated audience in order to discern greater depth from work, placing that work in the larger context of human history. A general audience is not expected to know as much and is therefore not a good assessment of the "quality" of work. Often there is criticism of what Critics determine to be "Art," but it's really up to them to discern what fits into the pantheon of Art. We often think of examples such as the garbage cans piece, that paint Critics in a negative light, however these are only the stereotypes of art criticism. First you must understand the in the case such as the garbage cans, these critics are trying to determine the worth of "Contemporary Art" which due to the fact that contemporary refers to what is newest, it is difficult to asses this kind of art. Secondly not all criticism is purely contemporary. I know in my own work I attempt to mix various mediums, styles, philosophies, and cultural art history. I do not expect a general audience to understand or even see all these references, not to say that I don't keep them in mind when I work. Without Critics (meaning people knowledgeable of Art) who would understand the depth of my expression?
The next thing that comes to mind is why any of this communication or "depth" at all? Well as I said before Art is an industry of communication. Furthermore Art exists for humanity not just an individual therefore it grows and changes in the larger world. When you make art you are participating in that industry, you are participating in that larger world. If I made a medicine that killed bacteria wouldn't you say, "Ah, wow, that's great, but isn't that the same thing as antibiotics?" Now I'm not saying that people should only make Art that has deep communication value. Hell you could make Art that doesn't communicate anything at all, but there's a catch. In order to make Art that doesn't communicate anything you need to be aware of communication. You need to communicate that your not communicating, that's very difficult if not impossible.
Now, what the hell am I talking about? Well I'm trying to separate who gets the title of Artist and who gets a variation. If I said I was a Programmer, you would assume that I had knowledge and skills in that area. If I say I am an Artist it should have equal weight. Not that anyone can go around calling themselves an Artist because they feel like it. There is also nothing wrong with being Artistic or an Amateur Artist. If you think all this stuff about education, art history, communication, and depth, is a pain no one is going to stop you from making Art. Who knows you may end up being an Icon (unfortunately most of the time those people are dead before they're recognized).
Duchamp and some color field painters communicated that they were not communicating. They intentionally went out of their way to leave the human hand out of things. So was that artist who sold the vaccum, what was his name?
I don't know if communication is a valid sole qualifier of what makes art art. Essays are a form of communication but aren't considered visual art. And you could say that everything was communicative even "bad" art, or "amateur" art. There are many people, for example, who identify with Thomas Kinkaid, and they wouldn't identify with it if it wasn't communicative, but that is considered "amateur" art by the art community. As you pointed out, the standards of what makes art or not art, and the standarts of what makes art good change dramatically over time and place. Granted, it is a form of visual communication - you're right there, but I think you are wrong in assuming amateur art is defined by being less communicative.
Ameteur art is characterized by what those unfamiliar with art are immediately drawn to. It also refers to what is popular, and what will be popular, and what is outside of those terms. more often than not, ameteur art is marked by a lack of technique. Even primitivism, suprematism, and minimalism are marked by certain technical characteristcs which people deem relevant to the movement (usually reactions to what is going on within that movement.)
I said communication was A key factor of what makes Art, Art, not the sole factor. I also said that an Amateur Artist is one who makes Art, but communication is arbitrary, not devoid (or any other quantitative amount) of communication. I am not a profession Critic as well as I have no in-depth knowledge of Thomas Kinkaid therefore I cannot say how he fits into the "World of Art."
I did not use technique in my variations on the title of Artist because it seem more relevant to judge upon the intent of the person creating then the style they chose to create in. I would argue that someone using a primitive style doesn't mean they are Amateurs. If Gustav Klimt did a series of stick figures does that make him an Amateur Artist?
Lastly we are teetering on the edge of "What is Art?" which I was trying to avoid in the first place, I did not intend to say that all communication is Art. All of my title variations include a "one who makes art and/or/but communicates '____.'" "One who makes Art" Being essential to the definition of my title variations. It is also important to note that I am not defining or explaining the quality of Art, I was purely setting a division between who is what kind of Artist, and for what reason I believe it to be so.
Brvhyyyyzzzzzzzzz, listen, I just finished agreeing with you on another thread, but need to reconoiter here. So far, no.
.OZ. wrote:I said communication was A key factor of what makes Art, Art, not the sole factor. I also said that an Amateur Artist is one who makes Art, but communication is arbitrary, not devoid (or any other quantitative amount) of communication. I am not a profession Critic as well as I have no in-depth knowledge of Thomas Kinkaid therefore I cannot say how he fits into the "World of Art."
I did not use technique in my variations on the title of Artist because it seem more relevant to judge upon the intent of the person creating then the style they chose to create in. I would argue that someone using a primitive style doesn't mean they are Amateurs. If Gustav Klimt did a series of stick figures does that make him an Amateur Artist?
Lastly we are teetering on the edge of "What is Art?" which I was trying to avoid in the first place, I did not intend to say that all communication is Art. All of my title variations include a "one who makes art and/or/but communicates '____.'" "One who makes Art" Being essential to the definition of my title variations. It is also important to note that I am not defining or explaining the quality of Art, I was purely setting a division between who is what kind of Artist, and for what reason I believe it to be so.
I argue because I love :wink:. Could you go into more detail about how communication would be arbitrary for an amateur artist?
Maybe art is what people consider to be art.
Quote:Maybe art is what people consider to be art.
Your probably right, but I'm not going to delve into that realm.
I use the term arbitrary in contrast to the term specific. Trying to describe arbitrary is a vague endeavor, so what I mean by specific is to say that the Artists intent on creating the piece/pieces is to communicate a aware and constructed idea.
truth
I have studied techniques of art-making, yet I am an amateur artist; I do not do it for a living. Professional artists make art in order to make a living from doing so AND most likely because they love doing so. I don't have to sell my art (but I DO feel a need to exhibit it). Instead, as an amateur, I have the economic freedom to paint solely for the love of it. The root of "amateur" is love. To love=amar.
I am not concerned with critics and the industry, parasitical offspring of the work of artists. I work for the approval of myself and of artists whose aesthetic ideals coincide more or less with mine. That is to say, they are able to understand my work--both its virtues and failings--from the inside, as it were, not "understand" it externally/superficially in terms of its place in the history of art or in terms of the market demands of the industry.
I have great faith in the ability of people to see greatness in art, to acknowledge what
is simply amazing instead of merely mediocre.....
truth
Shepaints, from your mouth to God's ear.
I used to be an amateur gardener.
Mainly, what that meant, is that I was NOT RESPONSIBLE to anyone about plants dying or bugs eating roots or what kind of fertilizer to use,etc.,etc.
Perhaps I can translate that into an amateur artist NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE to anyone about works falling apart, colors fading, design quality being inferior, etc.,etc.
What do you think?
no, as JL said so well, amateur means one who does something for "the love" of it. It has come to mean, incorrectly, untrained or naive. The word is precise in its original meaning, just as weve stolen and created new meanings for words, I resist the words negative inclination since many great artists and original scientists were amateurs.
Communication, whether desired or not intended is irrelevant to this discussion.
So? We disgree, that's all.
Creators are born, not made.
I think humans generally have a capacity for creativity - though it may be well tamped down it can be fostered. I don't know about chimps, maybe they do too. I think creativity involves a level of play, and chimps can play, eh?
I think I remember some good discussions on this on the abuzz threads of old.
I suppose some self awareness is involved, and some caught in catch as catch can lives don't foray into self awareness too much. Still, I think the capacity for creativity is there.
I remember my mother's oft repeated words, "I can't draw a
straight line", and hear those words now as kind of a chant from people who felt clumsy in elementary school while others drew perfect horse profiles. Facile hand eye coordination is certainly nice, but is not the core of creativity.
yes but creativity without discipline is refrigerator art.
My daughter is quite gifted in drawing and is also adept at computer graphics. I see her work compared to the other students who have no art background or skill. They teach computer graphics like any pongid can produce great art. Dont believe it.
Talent trumps techno
Yes, agree, and discipline presumably is dependent on selfawareness.. Actually the yin and yang, as it were, of discipline and play....
I am not so much speaking of art on a substrate, such as paper or canvas, as a whole way of being, with creative, uh, leaps of mind and hand.
truth
Ah, Osso, your post makes so much more sense.
