How do you become an artist?

[John Rountree]

There are several people on this forum who label themselves as artists. My question is, how did you become an "artist?" Did you take a college course(s)? Did critics who evaluated your work confer that title on you? Did you look at your own work and decide that was the appropriate title? In short, how does one get to the point that they can honestly call themselves an artist? Or, to ask the truly hard question, what is an "artist?"

 

[enochRoot]

if you create art, you're an artist.

 

[FrankS]

Great question. I think you just are or are not. If you have to ask the question, you are not. I am not either.

 

[bmattock]

I think being dead helps.

 

[excellent]

Make a living from your art or do like most do and pretend you are one.

 

[antiquark]

Here's my technical answer, which is somewhat similar to enoch's comment:
If you produce creative works that nobody else has done before, then you are an artist.

 

[cmdrzed]

You become an artist when you stop trying to be an artist.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Have some business cards printed with your name and "Artist" underneath it! Don't put photographer, though. Someone might think you shoot babies at Kmart.

 

[bennett2136]

One of the first requirements for an artist is to ignore those who would define whether they are artists. The only real measure is the person making the art or, if need be, posterity.

 

[Sjixxxy]

One of the first requirements for an artist is to ignore those who would define whether they are artists.

I completely agree. A lot of people call me an artist, but I never feel more out of place than when I'm around others who self-label themselves as artists and talk it up to no end.

 

[Damaso]

It is a state of mind. Not every artist received formal training but it is about passion and the quality of the work you produce. Some people call themselves artists but don't really make much art. Other people shrug off definitions and throw themselves into their work. What you produce is far more important than what you call yourself...

 

[flip]

if you create art, you're an artist.

Exactly.

Cartesian.

 

[flip]

Other people shrug off definitions and throw themselves into their work. What you produce is far more important than what you call yourself...

How you produce it is more important than what you produce.

 

[bmattock]

How you produce it is more important than what you produce.

When I look at a photograph, or read a book, or listen to music, I don't ask myself if the artist was starving, or what camera they used, or did they use a manual typewriter or a word processor, or was their guitar a Gibson or a Silvertone. I either like it or I do not. How it was produced means nothing to me as the recipient. I don't think how it was produced is important at all, from the observer's point of view.

 

[Pablito]

The important question is how do you become a "real" artist.
Looking back on my life, I must conclude that the answer is, "make sure you wear a really nice beret."
Personally, I prefer the real thing, from the Basque country.

 

[excellent]

A full wardrobe of designer ponchos?

 

[robklurfield]

I went to graduate film school 100 years ago (or so it seems). I make photos now. I'm still not an artist. I think Bill Mattock is right: it helps to be dead.

An analogy: I cook meals. I am not a chef.

 

[easyrider]

Art who?

Art who?

If you become unemployed, you have a choice of putting "artist" or "consultant" on your business card.

If you find clients, you can charge more if it says "consultant."

Maybe "visual artist" would work too. So would finding a rich wife or husband or maybe a "muse".

🙂)

 

[robklurfield]

if you want to make this discussion complicated, contentious and endless, lets start by asking: what is art?

when everyone has settled on a single definition, give me a holler and I'll rejoin this discussion already in progress.

if you make art, by definition, you are an artist. right? so, what is art?

as Orson Welles asks in F for Fake, "It is pretty, but is it art?" the movie is a great charade within a charade within a charade. it asks, but doesn't exactly answer the question of what is art. In the movie, one of the great art fakes of all times is depicted as creating fake Picassos and Modiglianis. Some of his work, and that of the father of the actress who is central to film, Oya Kodar (sp?), have works signed with the names of others passed off and hung in museums as if they were authentic. Are they art? If curators and other "experts" have opined that fake Rembrandts and Picasso are genuine, does that make them art?

 

[aizan]

you become an artist by making art. 🙂