Are you an artist?

[stepay]

So, a musician friend of mine and I had this discussion. He believes that only the very best of the best of musicians in the world are artists and that everyone else is not. He's talking like a handful of musicians on any instrument in the world (5 on piano, 5 on violin, etc.).

 

My feeling is that way more than that can be considered an artist and that there can be different grades. For example, you can be a bad artist or a stellar one. Being an artist doesn't necessarily mean you're the best at what you do, only that you've reached some sort of minimal competency; someone who just plucks out single notes with one finger and is just learning is not an artist. Therein lies the problem; this level is subjective. I can't tell you where the line is drawn from non-artist to artist.

 

In my case, I think I've reached the minimal level necessary to be called an artist (though I can't define it) but I would never refer to myself that way -- always as a musician or even more accurately a keyboard and guitar player. I prefer to be more accurate, and since "artist" can include lots of things, I wouldn't use that term.

 

So, do you think of yourself as an artist?

[delirium]

I'm afraid to say a word on that matter, one blow job per month is more then enough...

[Blue JC]

The word "artist" is just a description of a person who makes art. With the definition of "art" being completely subjective, anyone can be an artist.

 

Consider the following phrase: EMI Recording ARTISTS The Sex Pistols.

 

You and your friend are attaching a prerequisite of having to first achieve a certain skill level that is not required by the definition of the word artist.

 

"Virtuoso" or "Maestro" might what closer to what you seek.

 

 

[Dave Horne]

I think if you take yourself too seriously you're an artist.

 

I'm a chauffeur and the piano is my bus.

[stepay]

The word "artist" is just a description of a person who makes art. With the definition of "art" being completely subjective, anyone can be an artist.

 

Consider the following phrase: EMI Recording ARTISTS The Sex Pistols.

 

You and your friend are attaching a prerequisite of having to first achieve a certain skill level that is not required by the definition of the word artist.

 

"Virtuoso" or "Maestro" might what closer to what you seek.

 

 

I think "virtuoso" is what my buddy is looking for. Artist is tougher to define. I agree with you that anyone who creates art is an artist, but then what is art? I'm not debating or even asking someone else to define art for me -- just showing the difficulty here.

 

With regard to the Sex Pistols, they would have achieved my subjective level of competency in order to be an artist.

[ProfD]

I cannot draw or paint.

 

Seriously, on a musical level, I'd consider someone like Prince to be an artist.

 

I'm just a musician and more specifically, a keyboardist. That's why I hang out here.

 

 

[Legatoboy]

Do you mean Artist or Ar-teist? Tomato or tomoto, Potato - patato - lets call the whole thread off.

 

I really don't think of stuff like this, it's not good for you!

I'm a firm believe in less defining and more doing and Tabla-Rasa mental states!

 

I let other people figure out what they want to call me and nowadays I get called names all day, all I have to do is walk outside, something about growing into a man in this married with children world nowadays ( I have none btw)!

 

But I think musicians are in fact artists of a type, Yes!

lb

 

 

 

 

[delirium]

his was an artist:

 

http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/0/N/e/LeonardoSelfPortrait.jpg

 

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I'm an artist on a bunch of levels.

 

I practice the art of music, and have created enough of my own over the last 30+ years to consider myself an artistic musician.

 

Professionally, I create graphic art all day long, and also write, which is an art unto itself. I really can consider myself an artist, though I only call myself one with the most practical intent, rather than anything ego-driven.

 

Keep in mind: my being an artist doesn't make me good at anything I do.

[tarkus]

I'm a hostage negotiator.

[timwat]

For whatever it's worth:

 

There is craft, and there is art.

 

Art rises above mere craft when there is the intent of self-expression and "saying something" via a particular medium.

 

The media vary - visual art, dance, music, the written word, architecture, drama.

 

Craft can display technical excellence, competence, and meet particular external needs (elevator music, commercial soundtrack, music to entertain, etc.). There is need for craftsmanship in culture and society, for beauty and aesthetic. Nothing pejorative intended by using that term.

 

That being said, craft rises to art when the artist attempts (however successfully is the stuff of subjective opinion) to go beyond competence to "say something" personal - perhaps about worldview, personal joy or pain, purpose, worship of God, love for a woman (or man), etc.

 

Well, that's just my opinion.

 

[Dave Horne]

I'm a hostage negotiator.

 

I assume you work with a lot of female singers?

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

For whatever it's worth:

 

There is craft, and there is art.

 

I can buy into this, except for the intensely subjective nature of the definition of art (which I'm not going to touch with a 10-foot pole here).

 

I would say that after the amount of study I've put in, and the resulting output of original material I've created and helped create, that under these guidelines I'd still consider myself an artist. But I might at any moment meet someone with a tenth of my experience and knowledge that was more talented than me. Way more.

 

In other words, I may be an artist; I just don't think it means jack shit.

[timwat]

I can buy into this, except for the intensely subjective nature of the definition of art (which I'm not going to touch with a 10-foot pole here)...In other words, I may be an artist; I just don't think it means jack shit.

 

Yes, pontificating about the definition of art should be the definition of "diminishing returns".

 

But I'd disagree that "it means jack shit". I'm betting your art has touched a lot of people over the years - sometimes they tell you in ways that can sound a little sophomoric, "Jeff, I really dig what you did on that" or "Jeff, man, that touched me" or "Dude...I love you, man."

 

Now, I tend to get waaay to serious and introspective about meaning and purpose, and so I appreciate your keeping this in perspective.

 

But the fact that your music touches someone has to mean something, right?

[Eric VB]

So, a musician friend of mine and I had this discussion. He believes that only the very best of the best of musicians in the world are artists and that everyone else is not. He's talking like a handful of musicians on any instrument in the world (5 on piano, 5 on violin, etc.).

 

My feeling is that way more than that can be considered an artist and that there can be different grades. For example, you can be a bad artist or a stellar one. Being an artist doesn't necessarily mean you're the best at what you do, only that you've reached some sort of minimal competency; someone who just plucks out single notes with one finger and is just learning is not an artist. Therein lies the problem; this level is subjective. I can't tell you where the line is drawn from non-artist to artist.

 

In my case, I think I've reached the minimal level necessary to be called an artist (though I can't define it) but I would never refer to myself that way -- always as a musician or even more accurately a keyboard and guitar player. I prefer to be more accurate, and since "artist" can include lots of things, I wouldn't use that term.

 

So, do you think of yourself as an artist?

Well this is certainly a powder keg of a thread subject that has come up on the MP forums before in various guises.

 

Am I an artist? Sure. I create art. Therefore I art an artist.

 

Have I created any masterpieces that will stand the test of time, like Da Vinci? Probably not.

 

Have I performed at the highest level to critical acclaim, like Mikal Baryshnikov? Again, probably no.

 

And yet I still create art; I am still an artist.

 

The visual arts have such a long documented history (back to cave paintings) that they deal with such a question a little differently. I think they would agree that anyone that creates art is an artist. However, there seems to be a greater appreciation for those who avoid "been there, done that" in favor of being truly innovative and creative. Surely it takes a lot of talent to paint an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, but such activity doesn't generate a lot of acclaim within the artists' community.

 

It is dangerous to force such a view on the world of music as a whole. Perhaps within the realm of music composition it makes sense as nobody seems to be particularly impressed with new music that sounds like older, recorded music. (But keep in mind that recorded audio only goes back about a century and written music only about half a millenium, while the record of visual art spans some 32,000 years.)

 

In the world of dance it is performance that literally takes center stage. Although choreography could be scrutinized with regards to innovation the audience by and large is attracted to the performance of the actual dancers. It doesn't matter if this is the 1,000th viewing of The Nutcracker, what matters is how well this dance company performs it.

 

And from this point of view we can gleam an appreciation for the artistry of music performance.

 

However, as the rise of photography and other means of exactly replicating visual art was at least partly responsible in a shift from applauding artistic talent in favor of artistic creativity, music appreciation may be facing similar change as recording technology improves. (This is a bit apples and oranges, as I'd still rather listen to a live performance of Beethoven's music by a talented pianist than a copy of Gould's recordings.)

 

Then there is another kind of performance art, if you will, done by comedians called "improv". The analogy here is obviously to music improvisation.

 

Thus making a list of the top 5 pianists based solely on virtuosity and labeling them "artists" while exluding everyone else seems a bit myopic and naive.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

But the fact that your music touches someone has to mean something, right?

 

Oh, sure, absolutely! I was referring to the level of importance I assign the label of "artist".

[Yoozer]

He's talking like a handful of musicians on any instrument in the world (5 on piano, 5 on violin, etc.).

Are they going to be remembered in a century?

 

Ars longa, vita brevis.

[bloodyMary]

He's talking like a handful of musicians on any instrument in the world (5 on piano, 5 on violin, etc.).

Are they going to be remembered in a century?

 

Ars longa, vita brevis.

 

Some of them.

 

The thing is, best artists are not necessarily best craftsmen (e.g have great skills).

Look at Curt Cobain. He was a so-so guitar player and a singer. But his art moved millions of people, and he will be remembered forever, I guess. Same with few other rock stars.

 

We live in a century of folk music culture (I call blues, rock, rap forms of folk music). Folk musician doesn't always have great skills.

 

 

Am I an artist? I hope so. At least, that's what I play for.

If anyone's gonna like my new record - I'm an artist. If everyone's gonna hate it - I'm full of sh!t.

 

If someone just plays for a living, without involving much creativity, he's a craftsman, like my dad is (he's a full-time musician). If someone creates music (or brings new elements into existing music) - he's an artist.

[DanS]

I used to have these discussions when I was 12. At that time, there were only 5 bands in the world. Genesis, Pink Floyd, ELP, Deep Purple, & Zeppelin.

I've broadened my musical horizons since then.

Your bud should do the same.

 

Oh yeah, I ain't no artist, I'm a smoke & mirror musician...

[delirium]

I used to have these discussions when I was 12. At that time, there were only 5 bands in the world. Genesis, Pink Floyd, ELP, Deep Purple, & Zeppelin.

 

man, these were 5 bands in the world for me too at that time

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Look at Curt Cobain. He was a so-so guitar player and a singer. But his art moved millions of people, and he will be remembered forever, I guess. Same with few other rock stars.

 

I actually have great admiration for Kurt's playing and singing, and do believe he'll be remembered in a century (more than just for having killed himself, I hope). As to whether or not you want to assign him a label like "artist", that's up to you and your perspective. I think I would, though.

[AUSSIEKEYS]

quote. "Are you an artist?"

 

I guess it comes down to defining art...yet art cannot be defined..and who is the arbitrator who says we are correct.

 

but each of us have a defination, whether acknowledged or subconscious.And we place people into our folder of art at our discretion.

 

How many times have you disagreed about someones idea of an artist?

 

"I myself believe artists are those who create from a free flowing and original mind..having the dexterity to present these thoughts into a tactile and/or sharable experience or object.An artist is a dreamer who does!" quote from Aussiekeys.

 

I do not accept that being a musician allows you to say you are an artist, unless you are able to create an original experience from your own mind, thusly a musician who writes songs, composes or creates original musical riffs/ideas to embellish their own or others original pieces is an artist.

a musican playing in a cover band [as I have done so many times too]...is not!

 

But a musician can be one type of artist.

 

A craft person to me is someone who can use dexterity to "make" but not be able to create a truley original idea.

 

I am a nobody,but I do consider myself an artist,but I started as an infant,as an illustrator,as a youth as a surrealist artist, I helped support myself thu art college by performing in "originals" bands, I then made my living as a graphic artist/designer [and gave up painting],I closed my design studio when the need for computers took the pen and ink out of graphic artists hands and put the mouse there instead to become...computer operators,[yes i know its just another tool...but not mine.]

 

from there I jumped into fulltime music [oh dear..cover bands,trios,duos,but really only duos paid enough to survive fultime]no art in my music here at all...even stopped doing my original songs in favour of happy people grooving to old music], until my health suffered from it and I was forced to give up,

 

I am now full circle back to surrealist art,pop art mixed with some design,junk sculptor, and write so many songs that i had to stop till i could catch up to record them..[note to self..you've cleaned up your music studio last week...now get in and record, damn you]

 

Graphic/commercial Art sapped the artistic [painting] urge from me, not till I left that and finished musical performing have I returned to my passion...but it is not without its problems,I find inspiration for painting difficult now, but inspiration for songwrting too easy.

 

But in defining myself as an artist I bare in mind that one mans Michelangelo is another's Gaudi,there was a time when being an Artist defined one's business,an artisen who could create that pottery you drank and ate from,the guy who was so good at putting those lovely tiles on your earthen wall that created the story you wanted to share, ...

 

really in a way just another job...but its definition did change centuries later to include a more cerebral tone to it,this is where people are hanging up on the "oh its too much to call yourself an artist you pretentious twit."

 

really should you not just consider that an Artist has something to share of their own self and are prepared to put in some "dexterity" as i call it to get it out..Really no big deal...just a name to put to someone who is able to do that.

We call a rose a rose because it was easier than saying ...oh that beautiful flower with those petals that...ra da rada rada..."

 

Gee come to Australia and you will see how unpretentious artists are here,unless you can kick a football around the sacred grounds,swim for the olimpics, or hit a six for Australia ,for gods sake don't think you are gonna be the talk of the town as an artist...

 

unless you are famous you are treated like a no hoper in a way...oh are you going out with that dole bludger artist.

[not always like that...but artists can't make a living easily here as most Aussies do not put paying for art as a priority, so an artist cannot go back to his/her roots of simply being a person who made there living from art...an artisan...as there is little chance to make a living from it to use that definition]

 

lets face it..what an artist originally made a living from was just that...he had a product that could not be obtained anywhere else in his province...he was as important as the butcher and baker.

 

now in this modern world there are too many mass makers that can do it cheap and what was once the artists area has now long been replaced with cheap mass production...

 

we are no longer artisans [as there is literally no place for artsans in a modern world,speaking on a world level..ie a tiler now doesnt make/design the tiles he uses..does he] and we must now covet the later incarnation of an artist and that is the placing them more on the celebral level which was what artists were eventually pushed into centuries ago.

 

i think people make being an artist too precious...it is a want to express yourself in a way that others can interpret or at least view...a want, a need, a desire...it cannot and should not be suppressed.

 

Unfortunately most dont want to be critisized, and hope they are a hit...but those who truley believe they have something to offer will take that critique as acceptence that you [the viewer/listener] have delved into their inner soal..good or bad your ideas have been critiqued.

 

Perhaps those who cant be critisized are the pretentious artist...and those seeking a true critique are best able to define themselves as artists.

 

When was the last time you did something from your soul and you were critisized for it..did you erupt or did you listen and absorb that persons critique...no matter how much it hurt.

 

Yes negatives hurt...but nothing we create is a negative in our own minds..is it, we design brilliant stuff, don't we?...

 

it takes our audiences to cut us down and bring us back to earth...and hence a true artist is never above the rest..and always ready to be humbled...and if you cant take being humble then for god's sake or yours ..you'd beter be brilliant or you will die at your own hands.

 

so whether your audience/lookers agreed with you or not,it doesnt matter because your "art" inspired interest...perhaps when it doesnt is when you should hang up the brush.

 

just stop thinking that artists are precious...for they are like backsides .they are everywhere..

 

not many have anything new to promote...but does that matter to them,or us, enjoy those you admire, keep your mind open to new artists or other artists you have not experienced, and share your own art when you feel inclined.. and for your own sake do not do it for the money...for it is often luck that propels an artist towards money...and if you get negative critisism then endure the pain and continue where you see fit for your art.

 

And if you still cant stand a pretentious artist...just remember their backside points to the ground like yours...and one day most will just be a memory anyway [if that].

 

 

 

[Bosendorphen]

I like to create "art" in the realms of painting, music and film/video. That said, I REALLY like to create with "unabashed pretense." That is, stuff that's transparently pretentious (at least to me!) that people might interpret as profound. Pseudo-profundity is FUN!

[Legatoboy]

Some would argue that music is the most difficult of the 'arts' to perform. I know some credible teachers who believe this and stated it to me definably!

 

It happens in real time and takes almost all the senses. I guess dance would be the most closely related of the 'arts'!

 

 

 

[delirium]

I guess dance would be the most closely related of the 'arts'!

 

dancing? come on, it's not that hard...

 

http://www.savoycentral.org/instructors/doriana_paolo.jpg

 

 

I think sex can be an art...

[SpaceNorman]

Nope...I'm definitely NOT an artist. As much as I'd like to be truly original - the realistic assessment of my talents tells me that I'm a craftsman who churns out moderate quality knock-offs of pretty much any original. Every once in awhile, I screw up and come up with a knockoff so convoluted that I might be able to call it art in it's own right - but those are few and far between.

 

I view being a cover band keyboard player as being analogous to playing in a marching band. It's not the creativity that excites me - it's the thrill and satisfaction that I get from precise execution.

[Legatoboy]

Yes, Dance!

 

 

 

I guess dance would be the most closely related of the 'arts'!

 

dancing? come on, it's not that hard...

 

http://www.savoycentral.org/instructors/doriana_paolo.jpg

 

 

I think sex can be an art...

[Legatoboy]

Yes, Dance!

 

http://www.ballet-dance.com/200507/articles/images/MerceOcean_000.jpg

 

I guess dance would be the most closely related of the 'arts'!

 

dancing? come on, it's not that hard...

 

 

 

I think sex can be an art...

[Legatoboy]

Delirium,

 

"I think sex can be an art..." . . .

must you say these things, must you!