Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
The graduate with a Science degree asks, "Why does it work?"
The graduate with an Engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"
The graduate with an Accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"
The graduate with an Arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kidding aside, I envy those who make their living doing creative stuff, stuff they don't teach in books, that just pops out of the imagination. I personally feel temporarily better about the world after a 'creative' session of one sort or another.
|
We used to joke that it was people with English degrees that asked, "Do you want fries with that?"
I have issue with how much the term artist is thrown about. I don't think anyone calls themselves an engineer when they do something technical.
I have a friend who is an artist and had a girlfriend who was going to med school. When he would say that he was an artist, the response would always be, "You must be very talented." When he would state that his GF was in medical school, he'd get the response, "She must be very smart." Why the difference? Because art is more intangible than science? Because it's impossible to measure artistic ability in a quantifiable amount?
Personally, I find that talent is simply a starting place, and that you need intelligence of some sort to continue to achieve at the skill. A talented artist who doesn't work hard will never be better than a less talented artist who does work hard.
I'm not saying that people should have to quantify themselves by X number of drawings or Y quality of drawings in order to call themselves an artist, but that for someone to call themselves an artist because they create "art" is ridiculously subjective. It's like that annoying adage I hear over and over again, "I don't know art, but I know what I like." So if it's not liked, does that immediately lose all credibility as art, and by association, the artist's self proclamation that they are an artist? Of course not.
What if someone just creates one piece of art and never creates another piece for the remainder of their lives? Are they an artist until some statute of limitations runs out, in which case, they resume their lives as ordinary individuals?
Art is about communication of ideas, emotions and messages. Whether or not one is an artist that creates those ideas is irrelevant. In my professional life, my title is technical artist. Do I consider what I do art? Definitely not. I consider it to be a technical treatment of pre-existing art. Does it require artistry? Definitely. But is it art? No.
Clavus, it seems that the teacher was interested in your professional work, from the context of the conversation. In which case, the answer is no. But I consider you an artist.
/end drunken rant