Do you need a sales record to be considered an artist?

Hmm, is art a two-way street? Does it need to have an audience (or viewer or patron) to be art? If yes, then perhaps a sale is necessary. After all, it's the most concrete way to gauge interest and appreciation. But that also means that velvet Elvis painters may be considered artists, whereas some brilliant someone toiling in a garret isn't.

But what if art is just made for the artist? It speaks to the artist and perhaps to others but it's intended only for the artist's pleasure. Then I'd say, who cares even if the artwork is seen by another person, let alone purchased by them.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, e. g. the art should be seen by someone other than the artist and appreciated by them, but it doesn't have to be loved or seen or appreciated by everyone (Marcel Duchamp is considered an artist though his works are often not universally beloved, for example). But does money have to change hands? I think it puts too much emphasis on a commercial exchange.

But - are you an accountant if you never get to balance a book? Are you a pharmacist if you never fill a prescription? Are you a plumber if you never encounter a clogged drain?

An interesting philosophical question!

Shepaints -- I'd say definitely yes. Art is for art's sake, not for money. (OK, the money is nice....)

Wasn't it Vincent Van Gogh who never sold a single piece during his lifetime? I'd google that to be sure, but my stupid computer is acting up.

If you're concerned about it, have you been showing enough? Can you lower your prices to make them accessible to more people? Around here, the medical clinics, many malls and office building, coffee shops and restaurants have places for art to be displayed on a revolving basis, usually with a little card that gives the price. There are co-op artist galleries where you can show if you spend time helping. If you're taking a class, you can put your art up at the school. There are open-air markets where for a small fee you can display whatever you have and chat with people who come by.

Good luck!

Van gogh. I think he sold one, or almost did before he died. He also paid his doctor friend with paintings. One of his paintings was used to repair a chicken coup.

If sales alone defined either art or an artist itd be a pretty wild world, and I for one wouldnt want to live it.
Its an interesting question however and have to agree with the arguments jes has made.
In addition, art is defined or should I say hard to define in any concrete form so, how is one to define an artist?
Many people have abilities they consider artistic however having not much to do with art in a general nature.
I suppose rephrasing the question to: 'Am I only an accomplished artist if I sell my art?' would be getting more to perhaps the heart of the mattter. Still an arguable case though.

Do you need a sales record
Do you need a sales record to be considered an artist? Absolutely not.

You are an artist if you practice art. You are a professional artist if you live by the sale of your work.

Good answer, to me, Tomkitten.

Well, a contemporary Canadian artist recently
passed away at age 51. He was interested in sculpting cubes and the intersection of art and mathematics. During his career, he single-mindedly pursued his art even during a FIFTEEN year period when no one bought his work.
I thought that was astonishing.
Of course, now he is being recognized.

That posthumous recognition is something to look forward to.

Theo, Van Gogh's brother and an art dealer, sold one canvas shortly before the artist's death. He virtually subsidized his brother single handedly. A great film: "Vincent and Theo."

I think to motivation to create art is for your own self-fullfilment -- selling it is a decision to be made when one wants to be considered professional. Seeing what art is offered commercially to the public every day, I can say there is a broad range of quality as far as the success of the art.

You're still an artist if you don't seel your work, you're just not professional.

art for art's sake...money for God's sake.....

Robert Hughes, and I repeat myself, the Time Magazine art critic and historian has often bemoaned the mix of art and money. He feels the value placed on artwork is wildly an arbitrary decision made by only those who have the most money, including art dealers -- Machiavelli's "those who have the gold make the rules."

It's rarely the decision of how much something is worth made by art historians or museum curators.

really good answers, all of these and i agree, some terrible rubbish sells but isn't art, so no selling doesn't make it worthwhile and yes you can be an artist and never sell,

look at some of the truly amazing work done by Victorian ladies purely for their own pleasure (yes i know there is a lot of very bad painting as well but some is incredible) they are discovered in books and folios by their descendants. They never exhibited and the works were probably never seen except by friends and family

art
I think LWizard cut to the quick by observing that if you want to be considered a PROFESSIONAL artist you must make some money at it. But not all genuine artists are pros. But to be considered an artist one must create genuine art. But most important is whether or not the "artist" feels he or she is producing art.

That gets tricky because most tribal art wasn't created to be art. Native Americans and native Africans have fought battles with collectors over the proper display of artifacts - tribal masks were intended to commune with spirits or mark ceremonies, not hang on walls. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

art
That IS tricky, PortarStar, especially if one defines art as some do as an activity defined in terms of a theory of art, i.e., Duchamp's argument about his readymade junk or Warhol's Brillo boxes (exact copies of packaging designs not considered "art" by their original designer). I don't have an answer to that issue, but I don't think the art of Van Gogh or Cezanne is of the same nature as that of an African mask maker or a decorator of body designs for military battle. Western and Eastern "high" art seems to serve a very different function, almost a curative function--what beauty does for our psyches--as compared to the more practical--even magical--functions of "primitive" art.

art
Of course, an anthropologist of African art might report that mask makers take great aesthetic delight in making and presenting their work to others. So I'm presuming much.

Do you need a sales record
Those contributing to this thread might be interested in the recent one started by BumbleBeeBoogie "2 Kincaid galleries closed in ABQ".

I think of it in terms of commitment. First and foremost, I commit myself to the blank canvas. Then I commit to getting my work shown. The selling part I have little time for and have been criticized for that very fact. I consider myself an artist and by LW's standards, a pro. I'd be a bigger pro if I had an agent, but then I'd have to listen to someone yak away about money and deadlines and all that stuff that gives me panic attacks. No, you don't have to sell in order to be an artist. You can give them away.

art
Amen, Kayla. I love painting and hate business. In my town there is a large non-chain bookstore and at least two coffee houses that are willing to hang my paintings. THAT I can do, and I can do so enthusiastically since like other artists I AM an "exhibitionist."