How do you become an artist?

bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it fall?

If you find a tree on the forest floor, does that mean that it fell?

I have a friend who's father is a well-known artist - creates extremely lifelike marble sculptures of people. He developed a technology that does the sculpting. Basically, he just poses the subject and lets the machines do the rest. Somehow, that seems lest artistic than something achieved without such assistance in Helenistic times.

Are stalagmites in a cave art? They're beautiful, no doubt, but the creative force is certainly not human. I guess, when you take out the notion of conscious effort, the definition (for me) of art becomes so broad as to render the term meaningless.
 
robklurfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you are a cook. 😀

Nobody says an artist has to make what others consider to be 'good art.' It would be quite an achievement to make such a subjective assessment stick as objective.

[Frankly, some of the best artists might be good simply because they are unsatisfied with their own output.]

But yes, I agree, death helps.
 
Last edited:
The food I cook is edible, but I would not call myself a cook.
flip said:
But you are a cook. 😀

Nobody says an artist has to make what others consider to be 'good art.' It would be quite an achievement to make such a subjective assessment stick as objective.

[Frankly, some of the best artists might be good simply because they are unsatisfied with their own output.]

But yes, I agree, death helps.
Click to expand...
 
bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bill, in general I agree with you, and would prefer to look at work in a vacuum. But that is a rare thing, so my question would be this: does having that knowledge, or somehow gaining it later, impact or effect our experience of the art? If we take the viewpoint of a pure aesthetic experience as primary, doesn't it diminish that experience to have a kind of external support for our aesthetic perceptions?

And there's the other side, too: what if the process is important to the artist, if the work cannot be divorced from it? From my perspective, being somewhat of a materialist, I feel that if this is the case then the work should somehow bear traces of that process, possibly formally. But I'm just throwing that bit out there...
 
robklurfield said:
The food I cook is edible, but I would not call myself a cook.
Click to expand...

Point taken. I suppose that to my mind, you become a cook/artist/etc. when you actively endeavor to master (or at least get to know) your chosen craft.

Nobody starts studying something as an instant master. So, it's easier for me to think of someone as an amateur, pro, duffer, whatever... than to define some measurable skill level or objective output quality level at which one suddenly becomes an artist/cook/dancer/etc....
 
Last edited:
I make a living from design, I suppose that makes me a designer... I like to take photos so I suppose that makes me a photographer... and I bike to and from my office so I'm also a cyclist. I'm glad I have all these labels to define me, without them I'd be lost.
 
When I visited Paris a few years ago and walked the river Seine in the Latin Quarter, I had an almost overwhelming urge to throw off my conventional life in the USA, take a flat, study painting, and send for my children to come join me. It was a brief impulse, almost comical, but in retrospect I think it taught me that a lot of what makes an artist is true inspiration - talent helps too (of which I have none!).
 
Phil, I wasn't debating your concept. In fact, it makes good sense to me. However, you haven't tasted my cooking so be careful before you accuse me of being a cook.😉

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, talks about a benchmark being 10,000 hrs of experience at something. While I'm not sure this ought to be applied to art in the way one would apply it something like neurosurgery or golf, I do think that with time people develop points of view that inform that art they make. The question is at what point does your kid's finger painting turn from child's play to art? I don't know the answer. To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice (was it Potter Stewart), who was writing on another topic (a ruling on porn), is that most of us would say, "I can't define it; but I know it when I see it."

If one defines art as nothing more than organized expression of feelings, thoughts, ideas, etc., then what isn't art? Again, I have no idea.

Maybe the questions shouldn't be: "when does one become an artist?"... "what makes one an artist?"... etc., but rather, "what makes good art?" Unfortunately, this is bigger conundrum.

flip said:
Point taken. I suppose that to my mind, you become a cook/artist/etc. when you actively endeavor to master (or at least get to know) your chosen craft.

Nobody starts studying something as an instant master. So, it's easier for me to think of someone as an amateur, pro, duffer, whatever... than to define some measurable skill level or objective output quality level at which one suddenly becomes an artist/cook/dancer/etc....
Click to expand...
 
if you win a grant labeling yourself as an artist, then who are we to question whether you are an artist? if you can get funding, you ought to be able to call yourself anything you want. if you can obtain financial support to do what is important to you -- what you love doing -- I for one don't care much about a label. A pat on the back, however, is in order. and another for your membership in GAIA. Good work.
emraphoto said:
my first grant for 2010 says i am an "artist".
Click to expand...
 
to the OP: make art. that will make you an artist. make lots of it, as more practice will make you a better artist. pour your soul into, that way if no one else likes what you've made, at least you'll like it.

now here's a hard question: how do you become an art critic?
 
drewbarb said:
Don't feed the trolls, people.
Click to expand...

But, but, they're HUNGRY!

robklurfield said:
... To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice (was it Potter Stewart), who was writing on another topic (a ruling on porn), is that most of us would say, "I can't define it; but I know it when I see it."
...
Click to expand...

It was. But isn't a better quote, "I don't know art, but I know what I like"?

Cause really, most people disagree on any particular piece of art.
 
robklurfield said:
if you win a grant labeling yourself as an artist, then who are we to question whether you are an artist? if you can get funding, you ought to be able to call yourself anything you want. if you can obtain financial support to do what is important to you -- what you love doing -- I for one don't care much about a label. A pat on the back, however, is in order. and another for your membership in GAIA. Good work.
Click to expand...

well my friend if some folks want to give me $ to keep at it i'll call myself just about anything to help facilitate it.

lately i seem to be hearing "f&*#!r with the cameras" more often than not.
 
Well, while I've had some gallery shows, I'm certainly no artist and never refer to myself as one...more a competent technician. But I stopped trying to explain the difference a long time ago. Nobody listens. Never put much stock in labels or titles.
 
If you are a competent technician, then you've done well for yourself. I am an incompetent technician myself.

The skills I lack may actually contribute more to any "style" I possess than the skills I have. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but you play the cards you're dealt and try to make the most of it.

What I visualize sometimes rises to the level of art. The problem is when I execute the vision, the result is often slop. Nevertheless, a great many renowned painters painted over or flipped over canvases that they found unsatisfactory and simply started over. So, I guess that puts me in good company. For every Winogrand image I love, I wonder how many he shot that he never felt were worth printing? Or how many rolls sat in those metal file cabinets of his and were never processed?


Pickett Wilson said:
Well, while I've had some gallery shows, I'm certainly no artist and never refer to myself as one...more a competent technician. But I stopped trying to explain the difference a long time ago. Nobody listens. Never put much stock in labels or titles.
Click to expand...
 
hmm, good thread... i think if you have a gallery show and the patrons state "wow, i can really feel what the photographer is doing here, the images are full of emotion, power, and truth, i think i shall quit my job and become a international rescue worker and save kittens from trees" you are an artist. If the patrons say "wow, those photos match my couch perfectly! i'll buy them all!" then maybe you are a fine craftsman... and financially secure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom