I say this b/c I do not want to confuse the term artist as it refers to a social role, and the term artist as it refers to practising creation, or being creative.
Does that make sense?
I think there is a big difference, and an important one.
To that end, I am not an artist like you, or like jc, or like Pancoe, etc.
Only difference that I can see with the people you sited is a degree in Fine Arts, which although it helps, doesn't make you an artist either.
Doing artistic and creative things makes you an artist.
Although, planting a garden, does that make me a farmer? Maybe if I was selling my vegetables.
I think we're all artists. Although, I don't think we're all professionals in this regard. Which I think is what c-dog is getting at.
The difference between amateur sport and professional sport is the money.
I remember discussing this with Carlos on a Wolesly rooftop...he said he wanted to make some art...essentially that was the moment where I felt like he wanted to go express himself creatively. I'm sure he was doing it before, but it was then that he was interested. Okay, I'm rambling/reminescing here.
Grade 1 kid makes a landscape out of tempera with a sun int he corner...artist!
yes, glad we've broadened the discussion because, according c-dog's original definition...
van gogh was not an artist...
since he never put food on the table with it, and in fact died without having ever sold a single work (except to his brother, who served as a patron of sorts to him...).
the way i see it, c-dog now can (and should) claim to be an artist, since this post here proves him, in fact, to be so.
an artist like jc or dm, or pancoe? maybe not, in that they have applied a longer, more sustained effort, but, to me, anyone who makes and exhibits art can rightfully call him or herself an artist.
not that exhibiting work is a pre-condition, but whatever.
that's why i always scold people who tell me they are an "aspiring" writer.
bullshit, i say. you either are, or you aren't.
like Yoda says. there is no try. only do, or not do.
It would be interesting to hear a visual translation here...like if v, u, w represent the different balances of life(P to Q), with o being the escape, how does one hop from a to b and remain in balance?
I feel like this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times on this blog.
I think that the question defining what an artist is or is not is not as important or as interesting as the question of what is the process and the motivation behind defining one's self.
I guess I don't understand this because I have no desire or need to define my self or purpose to any one. Not that I look down upon anyone that does.
I use broad definitions when I talk to people like my dad's coworkers over Christmas. I tell them that I'm a nurse just because that makes it easier. That way they don't ask any more prying questions. I can't stand that.
And of course that would be the truth, or at least part of it.
>I think that the question defining what an artist is or is not is not as important or as interesting as the question of what is the process and the motivation behind defining one's self.<
One process and motivation of defining one's self is in defining the work that you do, which means defining what one is or is not.
As well, defining what value you bring to the world is partly found by providing a definition of what exactly it is that you do, and that can partly be a job, or a career.
In the inverse, being able to eat from what you do also provides some sense of value, and more $ does not equal greater value, it just provides the dignity of knowing that I can sell a painting, or be paid for my writing, in effect, I can be valued for what I want to do in the world.
>I guess I don't understand this because I have no desire or need to define my self or purpose to any one. Not that I look down upon anyone that does.<
Whether you like it or not, part of defining yourself is done in relation to familial and social expectation, I don't how much you can escape this. No one exists in a vacuum. Social relations abound.
To this end, I wonder why it is that you father's co-workers questions bother you?
One big difference not mentioned earlier between the professional and amateur athlete is quality. If you pit the two groups against each other it's obvious what would likely happen, regardless of pay. The amateur team would get their buts handed to them. They can still claim to be hockey players or whatever, just not NHL caliber. Of course for the case of art the quality is much more difficult to assess, since it is subject to personal tastes, and cultural understanding and not just measured in 'goals scored'. What I'm getting at, is there are many ways to describe ones self in relation to art and creative practice.
I am not on the NHL art team, but I still consider myself to be an artist. As much as I don't like to say it (since I recognize my own 'qualities', perhaps easier than others) I am an amateur.
Then we get back to the Van Gogh thing. While I think Wolfy's historical account is not entirely accurate(as I remember that Theo was an art dealer, and sold some/lots of Vincents art?) the idea that Van Gogh was an amateur causes some problems in my little theory. It was simply that his 'quality' wasn't yet recognized. It's not that it didn't exist, again, it's just art evaluation is not as easy as counting goals (sorry to those who know more about hockey and my over simplification).
So what is an artist? I think it's anyone who is creative (everyone) AND produces something THEY call art. In other words, if you say "I'm an artist", you are. As for who is a professional, or good, etc; that is largely up to the 'others' to decide. For now I just won't include the word amateur when I explain what I do. Hopefully my work will be deemed 'NHL' worthy one day (preferably while I'm still alive, but what-evs).
As for the social significance of amateur art, I would like to comment. I think every poorly drawn stick-man adds to the relevance of the language of art. Just like English, while not everyone is William Butler Yeats, everyone who speaks adds to the relevance. Even Yeats would be irrelevant if he was the only one who knew and spoke English.
I think when defining yourself is solely motivated by the pressures of familial or social expectations there is a certain loss of meaning to it all, or the meaning becomes somewhat contrived. I guess it depends on how secure you are with your own self regardless of what surroundings you find yourself in.
But yes you're right, every person should be proud of their accomplishments and should define themselves with these in mind.
Vincent only sold the one painting. When I sold my second, my Grandfather said "You've already sold more than Van Gogh' lol. I have no degrees. The closest to schooling I've had was getting the theme for the next Label show. Did I save myself a lot of money? Or am I missing out on something? I honestly can't say. As I've said before... I believe we are all born artists. It's just a matter of patience and interest after that.
Oh ya eh? That's what most of the sites seem to say (about selling 1 painting), but I don't know what to believe. I've heard so many different romantic Van Gogh stories, from profs text books and artists, it all seems like fable.
Did he cut his ear off cause of unrequited-hooker love, a fight with Gaugain, or was he wacked out on Foxglove and Absynth? Did he eat his paint, drink mineral spirits, sell painting s through Theo, or what really?
"I want to get to the point where people say of my work, that man feels deeply."
-Vincent (supposedly)
Also I was thinking... Like Sky's old "opposite of unicorn" thing... Just cause I'm not a professional artist, I am not necessarily an amateur. I remember in a psych class they were talking about how an "expert" is someone who has studied a particular field for 25 or more years. I must be getting close by now =). Anyway, I think I'm just consoling myself here, so I'll stop. It might be a handy bit to have in case some of my parents friends start giving me the social comparison grill. I hate that too, mostly cause I don't feel like I have a very good hand to compete with. Especially with real grown ups with real jobs. They say "look, I have a full house, what do you have?". I stutter quietly, "uh, Jack high card? What are we playing again?"
Anyway, I'm just rambling like mad now. Here is an interesting link about Van Gogh's decendants:
I somehow missed this conversation, but I'll throw in my rather late two cents...
Money has NOTHING to do with it. It is your need to do it, that's all. And everyone (with perhaps some very rare exceptions) gets better at something the more they do it.
For sure, when defining one's self solely relative to the pressures of familial or social expectations, there is a serious loss of meaning. But this happens in the context of any tautology.
And to think that money has nothing to do with it is a bit naive. I recall you saying once that you went back to school to become a linguist in order to improve the economics of your household.
I think it is a myth of modernity that our wishes and dreams should, or can even, be isolated from the reality of having to secure resources for survival.
The need to do things is partly mandated by the need to to survive, and balancing on the fringe of poverty focusses this issue par excellance.
Anyhow, I just think this position is a denial of what is really going on.
On the reverse, I also think it's a myth of modernity that one needs to define one's self wholly by a career or a job. That reminds me Micro's movie on modern slavery, the previous feature being one of the psychological tricks used by modern society to make people slaves.
I'm not sure why this is relevant, but I once had a professor who always gave this advice:
First learn to work hard; Then find your passion; And then the money will come.
I tend to agree with him, relative to a 95% accuracy, 9 times out of 10.
My comment about money having nothing to do with it was purely in response to "are you an artist?" - I should have been more clear.
Of course money has a lot to do with a lot of things, I'm not that naive (I hope) (anymore) :P
I think your prof's statement is one that is very easy to say from the point of view of someone who has already found financial success. People in such a position tend to underestimate to worth/talent/effort of people who are not there already, whether they realize it or not.
Well, professionally has at least two distinct meanings, one probably a connotation derived from the other. (1) "Doing X as one's profession" i.e. your job, also gives us the connotation (2) "doing X in the manner of one who's profession it is to do X". The problem is, when you mean (2) you usually don't also mean (1), but conversely it is possible to mean (1) without meaning (2), perhaps ironically.
I don't say that facetiously or to be difficult, but when someone says "professionally" (especially when it's in text and not in person) it is really difficult to know which one they mean.
art·ist (ärtst) n. 1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts. 2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen. 3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts. 4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.
Doing X in the manner one does something when being professional.
There are qualities to professionalism that can be held by painters, dentists, tree cutters, physicians, dish washers, lawyers, computer programmers, etc.
It's my definition (1) that always messes me up... because it's when I become concerned about the financial side of whatever I'm doing that my professionalism always worsens. When I am able to maintain non-awareness of financial reality, then everything else is just great!
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
30 comments:
Really nice, I'm liking these diagram collages.
word verif: haver
improved over the first, i'd say.
very cool.
so...
...are you an artist?
why or why not?
I'm not an artist per se.
I think one of the qualities of being an artist is putting food on the table with it, whether it's lots or no food at all, get what I mean?
I definitely do creative and artistic things, and that helps me heal.
:)
"being an artist is putting food on the table with it"
I strongly disagree with this, as I consider myself an artist, yet haven't really fed myself with it.
And I think you ARE an artist.
Funny question Wolfy!
I say this b/c I do not want to confuse the term artist as it refers to a social role, and the term artist as it refers to practising creation, or being creative.
Does that make sense?
I think there is a big difference, and an important one.
To that end, I am not an artist like you, or like jc, or like Pancoe, etc.
Only difference that I can see with the people you sited is a degree in Fine Arts, which although it helps, doesn't make you an artist either.
Doing artistic and creative things makes you an artist.
Although, planting a garden, does that make me a farmer? Maybe if I was selling my vegetables.
I think we're all artists. Although, I don't think we're all professionals in this regard. Which I think is what c-dog is getting at.
The difference between amateur sport and professional sport is the money.
I remember discussing this with Carlos on a Wolesly rooftop...he said he wanted to make some art...essentially that was the moment where I felt like he wanted to go express himself creatively. I'm sure he was doing it before, but it was then that he was interested. Okay, I'm rambling/reminescing here.
Grade 1 kid makes a landscape out of tempera with a sun int he corner...artist!
yes, glad we've broadened the discussion because, according c-dog's original definition...
van gogh was not an artist...
since he never put food on the table with it, and in fact died without having ever sold a single work (except to his brother, who served as a patron of sorts to him...).
the way i see it, c-dog now can (and should) claim to be an artist, since this post here proves him, in fact, to be so.
an artist like jc or dm, or pancoe? maybe not, in that they have applied a longer, more sustained effort, but, to me, anyone who makes and exhibits art can rightfully call him or herself an artist.
not that exhibiting work is a pre-condition, but whatever.
that's why i always scold people who tell me they are an "aspiring" writer.
bullshit, i say. you either are, or you aren't.
like Yoda says. there is no try. only do, or not do.
p.s. i like the balancing/dead/balancing/dead juxtaposition here.
It would be interesting to hear a visual translation here...like if v, u, w represent the different balances of life(P to Q), with o being the escape, how does one hop from a to b and remain in balance?
(I'm getting a Abraham Kaslov ladder flashback)
I think there should be a pole vaulter.
I feel like this debate has been hashed and rehashed many times on this blog.
I think that the question defining what an artist is or is not is not as important or as interesting as the question of what is the process and the motivation behind defining one's self.
I guess I don't understand this because I have no desire or need to define my self or purpose to any one. Not that I look down upon anyone that does.
I use broad definitions when I talk to people like my dad's coworkers over Christmas. I tell them that I'm a nurse just because that makes it easier. That way they don't ask any more prying questions. I can't stand that.
And of course that would be the truth, or at least part of it.
>I think that the question defining what an artist is or is not is not as important or as interesting as the question of what is the process and the motivation behind defining one's self.<
One process and motivation of defining one's self is in defining the work that you do, which means defining what one is or is not.
As well, defining what value you bring to the world is partly found by providing a definition of what exactly it is that you do, and that can partly be a job, or a career.
In the inverse, being able to eat from what you do also provides some sense of value, and more $ does not equal greater value, it just provides the dignity of knowing that I can sell a painting, or be paid for my writing, in effect, I can be valued for what I want to do in the world.
>I guess I don't understand this because I have no desire or need to define my self or purpose to any one. Not that I look down upon anyone that does.<
Whether you like it or not, part of defining yourself is done in relation to familial and social expectation, I don't how much you can escape this. No one exists in a vacuum. Social relations abound.
To this end, I wonder why it is that you father's co-workers questions bother you?
One big difference not mentioned earlier between the professional and amateur athlete is quality. If you pit the two groups against each other it's obvious what would likely happen, regardless of pay. The amateur team would get their buts handed to them. They can still claim to be hockey players or whatever, just not NHL caliber. Of course for the case of art the quality is much more difficult to assess, since it is subject to personal tastes, and cultural understanding and not just measured in 'goals scored'. What I'm getting at, is there are many ways to describe ones self in relation to art and creative practice.
I am not on the NHL art team, but I still consider myself to be an artist. As much as I don't like to say it (since I recognize my own 'qualities', perhaps easier than others) I am an amateur.
Then we get back to the Van Gogh thing. While I think Wolfy's historical account is not entirely accurate(as I remember that Theo was an art dealer, and sold some/lots of Vincents art?) the idea that Van Gogh was an amateur causes some problems in my little theory. It was simply that his 'quality' wasn't yet recognized. It's not that it didn't exist, again, it's just art evaluation is not as easy as counting goals (sorry to those who know more about hockey and my over simplification).
So what is an artist? I think it's anyone who is creative (everyone) AND produces something THEY call art. In other words, if you say "I'm an artist", you are. As for who is a professional, or good, etc; that is largely up to the 'others' to decide. For now I just won't include the word amateur when I explain what I do. Hopefully my work will be deemed 'NHL' worthy one day (preferably while I'm still alive, but what-evs).
As for the social significance of amateur art, I would like to comment. I think every poorly drawn stick-man adds to the relevance of the language of art. Just like English, while not everyone is William Butler Yeats, everyone who speaks adds to the relevance. Even Yeats would be irrelevant if he was the only one who knew and spoke English.
Does that make sense?
hehe
I think when defining yourself is solely motivated by the pressures of familial or social expectations there is a certain loss of meaning to it all, or the meaning becomes somewhat contrived. I guess it depends on how secure you are with your own self regardless of what surroundings you find yourself in.
But yes you're right, every person should be proud of their accomplishments and should define themselves with these in mind.
But my dad's coworkers are so stuck up.
Vincent only sold the one painting. When I sold my second, my Grandfather said "You've already sold more than Van Gogh' lol.
I have no degrees. The closest to schooling I've had was getting the theme for the next Label show. Did I save myself a lot of money? Or am I missing out on something? I honestly can't say. As I've said before...
I believe we are all born artists. It's just a matter of patience and interest after that.
Oh ya eh? That's what most of the sites seem to say (about selling 1 painting), but I don't know what to believe. I've heard so many different romantic Van Gogh stories, from profs text books and artists, it all seems like fable.
Did he cut his ear off cause of unrequited-hooker love, a fight with Gaugain, or was he wacked out on Foxglove and Absynth? Did he eat his paint, drink mineral spirits, sell painting s through Theo, or what really?
"I want to get to the point where people say of my work, that man feels deeply."
-Vincent (supposedly)
Also I was thinking...
Like Sky's old "opposite of unicorn" thing... Just cause I'm not a professional artist, I am not necessarily an amateur. I remember in a psych class they were talking about how an "expert" is someone who has studied a particular field for 25 or more years. I must be getting close by now =). Anyway, I think I'm just consoling myself here, so I'll stop. It might be a handy bit to have in case some of my parents friends start giving me the social comparison grill. I hate that too, mostly cause I don't feel like I have a very good hand to compete with. Especially with real grown ups with real jobs. They say "look, I have a full house, what do you have?". I stutter quietly, "uh, Jack high card? What are we playing again?"
Anyway, I'm just rambling like mad now. Here is an interesting link about Van Gogh's decendants:
http://www.tracingvincent.com/blog/hard-believe-history-van-gogh-family-00675
PS. Bluemask, you did miss something by not going to school for art, but you likely gained something else instead (and probably got a better deal).
I somehow missed this conversation, but I'll throw in my rather late two cents...
Money has NOTHING to do with it. It is your need to do it, that's all. And everyone (with perhaps some very rare exceptions) gets better at something the more they do it.
For sure, when defining one's self solely relative to the pressures of familial or social expectations, there is a serious loss of meaning. But this happens in the context of any tautology.
And to think that money has nothing to do with it is a bit naive. I recall you saying once that you went back to school to become a linguist in order to improve the economics of your household.
I think it is a myth of modernity that our wishes and dreams should, or can even, be isolated from the reality of having to secure resources for survival.
The need to do things is partly mandated by the need to to survive, and balancing on the fringe of poverty focusses this issue par excellance.
Anyhow, I just think this position is a denial of what is really going on.
On the reverse, I also think it's a myth of modernity that one needs to define one's self wholly by a career or a job. That reminds me Micro's movie on modern slavery, the previous feature being one of the psychological tricks used by modern society to make people slaves.
I'm not sure why this is relevant, but I once had a professor who always gave this advice:
First learn to work hard;
Then find your passion;
And then the money will come.
I tend to agree with him, relative to a 95% accuracy, 9 times out of 10.
:)
From the movie Anchor Man:
60% of the time it works every time!
Word Verif: Misfuzze
My comment about money having nothing to do with it was purely in response to "are you an artist?" - I should have been more clear.
Of course money has a lot to do with a lot of things, I'm not that naive (I hope) (anymore) :P
I think your prof's statement is one that is very easy to say from the point of view of someone who has already found financial success. People in such a position tend to underestimate to worth/talent/effort of people who are not there already, whether they realize it or not.
He may, but I definitely don't.
That is why I tend towards Simone Weil's notion of the dignity of labour, physical or intellectual.
Doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it professionally.
Does that make sense?
Well, professionally has at least two distinct meanings, one probably a connotation derived from the other. (1) "Doing X as one's profession" i.e. your job, also gives us the connotation (2) "doing X in the manner of one who's profession it is to do X". The problem is, when you mean (2) you usually don't also mean (1), but conversely it is possible to mean (1) without meaning (2), perhaps ironically.
I don't say that facetiously or to be difficult, but when someone says "professionally" (especially when it's in text and not in person) it is really difficult to know which one they mean.
art·ist (ärtst)
n.
1. One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.
2. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: You are an artist in the kitchen.
3. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.
4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French artiste, from Old French, lettered person, from Medieval Latin artista, from Latin ars, art-, art; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]
I mean:
Doing X in the manner one does something when being professional.
There are qualities to professionalism that can be held by painters, dentists, tree cutters, physicians, dish washers, lawyers, computer programmers, etc.
That's what I thought you probably meant.
It's my definition (1) that always messes me up... because it's when I become concerned about the financial side of whatever I'm doing that my professionalism always worsens. When I am able to maintain non-awareness of financial reality, then everything else is just great!
geez. sorry i asked.
:)
Don't be sorry that you generated 29 comments on an intersting piece of art and an interesting subject.
Woohoo, I think this is my first 29!
Post a Comment