topic for discussion - artist

[jan normandale]

I am what I am. I am a husband, I work in finance, I parent my adult children, I paint, I fish, I photograph, I do charitable work, I do silk screen printing, I am a friend.

Joe I don't think any of these things will be what I am eventually remembered for. If I'm lucky I might get one or two of them.

Go shoot some film, because I know you like to.

 

[wlewisiii]

It's kind of interesting to me how this thread has turned. I do believe that anyone who engages in an art form - heck, even any artistic endeavor - is in some way simply and truly an artist. I can not accept the all too elitist definitions of art and artist I have seen because of that. For one small example, I can not, for the life of me, understand the attraction of Jackson Pollock's works. And yet there are, literally, millions that would disagree with me on his merit and skills. So why should I give anyone else, including myself, any lesser consideration?

I watched my young next door neighbors (very obviously college students) carry into their house today an enlarger and the rest of the elements of a wet darkroom. I hope that thier work will help boost my own.

All I know and care about is this - I do what I do out of the simple love of it. Once in awhile I find someone who agrees with something that I have done. That's really great ego-boo, but that's all it ever is. Art is the ultimate subjective exercise. But that statement gives us even less excuse for not going out there and working our ass off to create just what it is that _we_ call art. If you do, in fact, call yourself an artist, then you need to be out there every day working at it. I try to. Sometimes I even succeed... it's kinda like being a christian, in that respect... 😱

William

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I think the main problem is that everyone's perception of art is different. One person's art can be another person's trash and so on. That said, one person's trash can be another person's art.

 

[Crasis]

while that is technically true...most people don't put a lot of thought into thoughless statements, i doubt they would get it.
but my point is more that others believe it's the gear and not the person that makes the photo.

btw, it was good to meet you and your lady today.
joe

It was great to meet you too, Joe! I love meeting people from the Internets!

 

[Finder]

Fortunately, "new" is not a criteria of "art." It is a criteria for fashion. Unless you can tell me why traditional artists do not make "art." I would like to see Japanese calligraphers, tea masters, Kabuki actors, painters, and Kinko-ryu Shakuhachi players suddenly stop being artists and there product suddenly not "art."

I have a feeling "new" and "unique" is the refuge of those without talent. Not that art connot develop, but true creators like Picasso and Van Gogh did not harp on their "originality" to sell there work, but rather how good it was.

 

[RayPA]

Maybe, most of us are practitioners, craftpersons. We practice at a craft based upon aesthetics laid out for us by artists, philosophers, ground-breakers who have set the boundaries and expectations of a medium. I think to really be an artist you have to have some philosophical vision, or something that drives or propels you through your chosen medium toward proving or realizing a theory or thesis. It doesn't have to be a major theory, or a profound thesis, but to work at advancing an idea, or expanding the boundaries of a medium would make you an artist.

Maybe "doing" something or doing something well doesn't make you an artist, it makes you a craftsperson, someone proficient at the craft. The guy selling photographs at the weekly street fair at the end of Market Street, down by the ferry building in San Francisco isn't an artist, he's a craftsperson adept at fulfilling the expectations of the medium of photography. He works well within the "givens" of an art form, the medium, the tools, the limitations. He is creative. He knows the medium; he knows the expectations; he knows what will sell, but he's not an necessarily an artist.

Maybe the artist is someone who pushes against the boundaries, against the limitations, against the expectations of a medium, or genre. IMO, artists are a lot like philosophers—and vise-versa—that is, their methodology, their approach to their chosen medium is driven and guided by theory, on a theoretical basis.

Good question, Joe. Nice idea for a thread. 🙂

 

[Finder]

IMO, artists are a lot like philosophers—and vise-versa—that is, their methodology, their approach to their chosen medium is driven and guided by theory, on a theoretical basis.

I would not agree with that statement as it does not apply to me, nor does it apply all artists. Ansel Adams comes to mind as he emphasised "craft" over "theory." Artist can be intuitive. No offence, but I would say your definition is the academic definition of an artist, which is widely pushed in our universities. This is a psuedo-scientific approach to art I feel is a way to justify art to an academic audience. Unfortunately, this has made art critism and theory a rather fuzzy discipline, which has little credibility outside the group it is targeted to. (Sorry, but that is JMHO.)

Now, there is nothing wrong with philosophy. And an artist can be interested in the subject and can apply those ideas to his art, but it certainly is not a prerequisite. Arget never had great theories. But here again, most philosophy aimed at artists is usually never gets past personal pet theories or dry academic arrangement of history which is based on some shakey assumptions. This presents a huge problem as this field needs to be completely overhauled if it is going to be anything more than just a loose collection of opinion.

Now, I think your distinction between "art" and "craft" is rather abitrary. The traditional way of learning a Japanese art is based on rote rather than philosophy. The artist simply practices his art to gain proficency. The image of students meditating on Zen riddles is more to do with Western romanticism than the reality. Learn by doing would be the maxum.

If there can be a universal definition of art and artist, then it must encompass the entire field otherwise you just have personal opinion. And I agree, it is an interesting question.

 

[Marc-A.]

Thanks Joe for this worthy thread! Many thanks also for the insightful contributions.
I'll be short:
I am teaching philosophy (currently at the Sorbonne), which means I am not a professional photographer (besides I started photography for about a year, on last September).
I am not considering myself as an artist in photography, while I am striving to produce a few good pictures (I hope I succeeded in shooting at least one fair photograph). To be honest, I am considering myself as an artist in literature, but it is out of the topic.
Now, about what is an artist, I have a very simple criterion but it applies to all artisitic fields (maybe not to music, but it should be argued): an artist is someone whose work provides a new vision of reality. This is a classic criterion but I think it is useful. As Paul Klee (after Oscar Wilde) put it: Art is about making visible what remains invisible.
I should add that to be an artist takes a lot more than producing one or two or three good pieces (one good picture does not make anybody a photographer, as one good poem does not make anybody a poet). To be an artist requires to produce a whole work every single part of which is necessary to appreciate the new vision.
Draw the relevant conclusions.
Best,
Marc

 

[Nachkebia]

Of course I'm an artist. Photography is an art, not a science. Now, whether or not I'm a good artist is a completely different question... 😉

William

Well, Everything is "art", even driving a taxi, but only good is art, Ahh my english is awfull 🙂

 

[Nachkebia]

I wanted to say, it becomes art when timless, well contemporary art you will say but, really good once are timeless, comntemporary or not 🙂

 

[Finder]

Thanks Joe for this worthy thread! Many thanks also for the insightful contributions.
I'll be short:
I am teaching philosophy (currently at the Sorbonne), which means I am not a professional photographer (besides I started photography for about a year, on last September).
I am not considering myself as an artist in photography, while I am striving to produce a few good pictures (I hope I succeeded in shooting at least one fair photograph). To be honest, I am considering myself as an artist in literature, but it is out of the topic.
Now, about what is an artist, I have a very simple criterion but it applies to all artisitic fields (maybe not to music, but it should be argued): an artist is someone whose work provides a new vision of reality. This is a classic criterion but I think it is useful. As Paul Klee (after Oscar Wilde) put it: Art is about making visible what remains invisible.
I should add that to be an artist takes a lot more than producing one or two or three good pieces (one good picture does not make anybody a photographer, as one good poem does not make anybody a poet). To be an artist requires to produce a whole work every single part of which is necessary to appreciate the new vision.
Draw the relevant conclusions.
Best,
Marc

Marc, you have some interesing ideas here. "An artist must provide a new vision of reality." Where do you place the traditional arts by primary cultures? Where do you place classical musicians?

"An artist must make more than one work to be an artist." Where does that place Harper Lee author of To Kill a Mockingbird?

Since you are a philosopher or at least teach the subject, I am curious on your opinion.

 

[jonasv]

Whether I am an artist or not I will leave up to others to decide. All I know is that for my recent work, I do not want to be considered an artist but a (photo)journalist. Photojournalism certainly has an aesthetic side, but, to quote Salgado: "I don't want anyone to appreciate the light or the palette of tones. I want my pictures to inform, to provoke discussion and to raise money". Those sentiments are quickly becoming key for me as well.

 

[Finder]

The raise money is really important.

 

[Marc-A.]

"An artist must provide a new vision of reality." Where do you place the traditional arts by primary cultures? Where do you place classical musicians?
"An artist must make more than one work to be an artist." Where does that place Harper Lee author of To Kill a Mockingbird?

Very difficult questions indeed; thanks Finder 😉 . There are three different questions; I will try to address two of them:
1. I (impersonal “I” in fact) think that there are at least two different meanings (ie references) of the concept of art: art can refer to a wide range of cultural activities, having other aim than art (religious initiation or education, political propaganda, social reproduction …etc); art can refer to a particular "disinterested" activity, “l’art pour l’art” which, if you want, was born in the European Renaissance and spread over different countries and different cultures, including Japan. When we talk about art, we should specify which conception we are referring to. I think we were talking about art in the later sense. This means I am not considering the traditional arts in so-called “primary” cultures, in my definition of art; nor am I considering Greek and Christian religious art.
2. You’re right to point out the difficulty about classifying music (not only classical music), but I’ve already pointed out this difficulty in my previous message. It would take a long development and I’m not sure I have clear ideas about the question. Forgive me for skipping it.
3. I will stick to fact that one good work even a masterpiece does not make anybody an artist. I added in my previous message: “draw the relevant conclusions”. One good work is one good work; to be an artist requires much more than that. Shakespear is not an artist because he wrote Hamlet (by the way, it is not my favourite play), but because he wrote Hamlet and Macbeth and Twelfth Night and so on, with an equal inspiration. In the French Literature we have a poet known for only one good sonnet, Felix Arvers. I have always considered it was not the result of an artist’s work, but of luck … call it insipiration if you want. As Paul Valéry, another French poet, said about one very famous poem of his own, “Gods gave me the first two verses, but I had to work for the others”. One good photograph, one good sonnet, one good novel …
I can see my answers are not satisfactory, sorry for that. 😱
Best, Marc

 

[jonasv]

The raise money is really important.

Yes it is. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Upon rereading my post I can see it is not very clear what I meant, with Salgado's quote pulled out of it's context. Sebastião Salgado shoots documentary work for NGO's and by raising money he doesn't mean earning money himself, but raising money for the cause he's shooting for and the NGO in question.

I don't want to compare myself to Salgado, I'm just a beginner, but I've recently shot my first documentary series for an NGO that works with homeless kids in România, and I know that my story and my pictures will raise money over here in Belgium (and maybe in other countries) once I get them published and maybe expositioned (still developing, scanning and editing for now). This money will be used by the NGO to assist the homeless with medical care, food, hygienic needs, ... and in the longer run the building of a shelter.

This is what I want to accomplish in photography, I don't want to take pictures for personal fulfillment or bragging rights, but for raising money for good causes. That's why I don't want to be an "artist". There should not be anything "artsy" about pictures of kids who die from sniffing glue, who sleep on faeces and garbage in sewers and under bridges, who prostitute themselves, who beg and steal...

Sorry for the rant if you understood the "raising money"-part and were merely confirming.

 

[Finder]

Yes it is. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. Upon rereading my post I can see it is not very clear what I meant, with Salgado's quote pulled out of it's context. Sebastião Salgado shoots documentary work for NGO's and by raising money he doesn't mean earning money himself, but raising money for the cause he's shooting for and the NGO in question.

I don't want to compare myself to Salgado, I'm just a beginner, but I've recently shot my first documentary series for an NGO that works with homeless kids in România, and I know that my story and my pictures will raise money over here in Belgium (and maybe in other countries) once I get them published and maybe expositioned (still developing, scanning and editing for now). This money will be used by the NGO to assist the homeless with medical care, food, hygienic needs, ... and in the longer run the building of a shelter.

This is what I want to accomplish in photography, I don't want to take pictures for personal fulfillment or bragging rights, but for raising money for good causes. That's why I don't want to be an "artist". There should not be anything "artsy" about pictures of kids who die from sniffing glue, who sleep on faeces and garbage in sewers and under bridges, who prostitute themselves, who beg and steal...

Sorry for the rant if you understood the "raising money"-part and were merely confirming.

No, it was not sarcasm. In an economic world, you need money to pursue your art. Many famous photographers had/have another source of income that lets them do what they did/do. Most of us have to earn it. Salgado could not donate money if he did not create the money to support himself. Money is thought of as a dirty word in art. Supposedly you should do for nothing as it is noble while publishers, printers, and other organizations make money from what you do.

Poverty helps no one. Especially the artist. The more money you have, the more you can do.

 

[Finder]

Very difficult questions indeed; thanks Finder 😉 . There are three different questions; I will try to address two of them:
1. I (impersonal “I” in fact) think that there are at least two different meanings (ie references) of the concept of art: art can refer to a wide range of cultural activities, having other aim than art (religious initiation or education, political propaganda, social reproduction …etc); art can refer to a particular "disinterested" activity, “l’art pour l’art” which, if you want, was born in the European Renaissance and spread over different countries and different cultures, including Japan. When we talk about art, we should specify which conception we are referring to. I think we were talking about art in the later sense. This means I am not considering the traditional arts in so-called “primary” cultures, in my definition of art; nor am I considering Greek and Christian religious art.
2. You’re right to point out the difficulty about classifying music (not only classical music), but I’ve already pointed out this difficulty in my previous message. It would take a long development and I’m not sure I have clear ideas about the question. Forgive me for skipping it.
3. I will stick to fact that one good work even a masterpiece does not make anybody an artist. I added in my previous message: “draw the relevant conclusions”. One good work is one good work; to be an artist requires much more than that. Shakespear is not an artist because he wrote Hamlet (by the way, it is not my favourite play), but because he wrote Hamlet and Macbeth and Twelfth Night and so on, with an equal inspiration. In the French Literature we have a poet known for only one good sonnet, Felix Arvers. I have always considered it was not the result of an artist’s work, but of luck … call it insipiration if you want. As Paul Valéry, another French poet, said about one very famous poem of his own, “Gods gave me the first two verses, but I had to work for the others”. One good photograph, one good sonnet, one good novel …
I can see my answers are not satisfactory, sorry for that. 😱
Best, Marc

Thanks Marc. I am not sure I agree with you except that these are difficult questions.

 

[robert blu]

Very interesting thread, but takes a lot of time to read (translate) all and comment. For the moment I just say I feel a photographer temporary borrowed to the marketing in order to survive ! which is positive because I'm the only "purchaser" of my work. Trying to switch to more "artistic" view taking course, visiting galleries, discussing with other "art oriented" people, etc. Sometimes I feel my work can be defined art (or similar to it), sometimes absolutely not ! I ll try to read all the post and come back with more appropriate post later, ciao
robert

 

[terrafirmanada]

Everything is art thanks to Duchamp (ie fountain). And I think that John Baldessari touched on another strong point when he said that if we were to tie a camera onto a cow, and let it wander around town it would probably take better photographs than most people do. We are going out to eat, but this is a good thread. more from me later.

 

[back alley]

bump


joe