What is an "artist?" Are you one?
 

One of my kid's preschool teachers commented on my son's shirt. She liked the design on it, and asked if I had painted it. I had, indeed, painted the Iron Giant on the shirt with an airbrush.

"ooo!" she cooed, "Are you an artist?"

I smiled and said, "no"

She gave me the wierdest look afterwards.

So I got to thinking. What does it mean to say one is an artist? Since I've had no training in art, and I don't make my living creating art, I don't think I'm an artist. I can not draw or paint things that look "real."

My wife, on the other hand, thinks I'm an artist. She points out that I draw almost every day; I make a regular (though very small) income from my cartoons, we have paintings hanging in our house that I painted, and most of our family and friends have cups or vases that I threw on a potter's wheel.

What is your definition of an artist? What seperates an artist from a person who just likes to paint?

I think if you make something from scratch, you're an artist.

Like food. The difference between gourmet and Mickie Dees? Gourmet chefs make from scratch.

Or like paint by numbers.

Even if you're copying something, like your sons Iron Giant, or a band doing a cover song, I would still call it art.

I was just thinking about this yesterday.

I am an artist, though I do not draw, write fiction, or compose music.

I use my scientific knowledge, and the good old mark 1 eyeball to create my art.

I have to envision the end product, adjust for differences, and each time I look at the project I make small changes to reach perfection.

I'm an orthodontist, teeth, bone, and tissue is my canvas.

And while my art will never hang on a wall, it has been on the cover and in the pages of many magazines.

I think there are a lot of people out there who would never consider themselves an artist, but are worthy of the name.

i consider cooking my art...i don't usually say that i'm an artist, but if i thought about it....it would fit.

I guess we're all "artists"?

I'm a bullshit artist! :p

I like to consider myself an artiste of weirdness or annoyance. I don't think I qualify as an artist by the "paint or compose" standards though. An artist is just someone who creates creatively I suppose, someone who adds panache to his or her chosen activity.

I think all it takes to be an artist is to have some kind of driving vision for an end product that expresses your self and just has to come out, and then to realize that vision. It could be traditionally "artistic" media like music, painting, sculpture, etc., or it could be cooking, dancing, writing, carpentry, or even orthodontics.

I'm most definately not an artist. I'm an engineer by education and inclination. When I take photographs, I can calculate exposure, depth of field, and the rest, quite easily. Composition, however, does not come naturally.

While remodeling my kitchen, I can put things together and make everything work, but I need a plan or some direction to make it look nice.

I'm probably too analytical to have any artistic talent.

Clavus, you are, most definitely, an artist of extraordinary talent. To me, an artist is one who can take what his or her mind sees and allow the rest of the world to see it as well.

I think the point where what you are doing goes beyond what can be taught, you slip into 'artist'.

artist is a funny word in that it entails the idea that there are folk who are specialists in creative activity. i think this split between creative work and the rest of your life is debilitating.

from folk who work under this classification, you find often highly developed expressions in very specialized languages. but some of the most technically virtuosic and emotionally moving experiences i have had experiencing the work of others has originated from environments that are not hobbled by this goofy specialization.

in fact, to my shock, i agree with ustwo above (no. 11)

making things seems to me about process, about control over technique and materials and openness relative to technique and to materials. what you make--the objects--are markers, points where different aspects of what engages you get brought into a certain relation. fixed and left behind.

oddly, I agree with ustwo as well... a craftsperson is not an artist because they competenly make the same things, again and again (usually from instructions). An artist brings some other ineffable quantity (or quality) to the the object.

I like to think of myself as an artist. I play music, I draw a little, write a little, design a lot.

I even have a plaque that "Brampton Arts Council Royal Bank Artistic Achievement Award, presented to Katie" So if I managed to be school artist of the year without being an artist, the joke's on them. ;)

I could really do without the distinction between who is an artist and who isn't. Right now, I'm on campus at the Banff Centre for the arts in Alberta, and me and my colleagues walk around with i.d. cards with "Artist" in bold letters underneath our names. It's pretty stupid, and I guess it's to help make us feel special while we're here to create, but I guess my point is that anyone can be an artist.

To me, all it takes is to become an artist is to create something expressive

An artist is someone who holds the attention of others by some performance or creation.

I'm a lighting designer in theatre and consider myself an artist, even though my work is subject to the director's vision as well as set design boundries and other logistical challenges. They are all part of the medium.

This debate often surfaces when tax dollars are at stake. Just wait until the next time your local public gallery purchases a broadly conceptual work of art for a lot of money.

In my mind an artist is one who can not only create and understand something, but can apply it as well. Be it in music, painting, or writing; be it in sculpting, engineering or building; be it in philosophising, thinking, or teaching. If you comprehend something to the poitn of being able to create it and you can show it to someone else, you are an artist.

And yes, I am an artist.

I have always perceived an artist as someone who can convey an emotion, either a moment or a mindset. An artist creates something that can take the audience into a particular frame of reference and allows that audience to experience that moment or mindset.

Lots of people are artists. But there is plenty of room at the top.
For me, it's a matter of degree. I'm one of the people who play jazz sax but I'm no Stan Getz!

Go spindles :lol:

I am moved! :D

Actually, that is one of my better pieces

<-- not an artist.

The problem with this definition is David Blaine in a box would qualify as 'art' :lol:



http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/euro....blaine.ap.jpg

ah art, such a hard to define concept. Many artists have played with the definition of art. People argue whether <i>Piss Christ</i> or Christo and Jeanne-Claude's work is art or not (ex: The Gates). Marcell Du Champ challenged the common definition of art by taking a urinal and putting it on a pedestal in 1911. Stieglitz and others (Man Ray?) helped elevate photography to high art. Picasso, Jean Arp, and others elevated collage into art. I could go on about the fluid nature of the definition of art but that may take me all day.

What I am trying to get at is that the definition of art, and the definition of the artist, is up to youself. One person's art may be another persons trash. (Andy Warhol's soupcans) It is up to you what is art and what is not. If enough people agree it may just end up in a gallery.

I always laugh at the Grammy's when they say, "recording artist's."

Sound engineers and producers are "recording artist's." Seldomly are the musician's that. But then again,...

yup. and what seeker said about conveying an emotion rings true for me. it doesn't have to be deep or even have meaning, but you can't deny a reaction. if the viewer is totally unchanged, then the piece has no effect, and it would be tough to call it art.

and clavus, not only are you an artist, you're a professional artist. you get paid (no matter how little) for it. but for now, hold on to that day job. what is it, by the way?

The problem with defining who or what an artist is, is that nobody can truly answer the question what is art. Clavus you may not qualify yourself as an artist due to lack of formal training, but then cave paintings are called art and those people did not have degrees, wether you label yourself an artist is as subjective as wether you label something art, it will be different from person to person

Well.... I would not say that I am an artist but I definately have an interest in art. I just do small things like crafts with my gf. But other than that, I really do not dedicate that much time to art, though now I have more than before.

I like to draw but do not really think of myself as an artist.
I feel like I mostly ape other artists.
Perhaps I an ape with artistic tendencies.
I am an artistic jackanape!

IMO, an artist is someone who does works consistently and/or for money, reward, or fame.

Someone who has the ability is artistic, but not necessarily an artist. (IE: I am not currently an artist, though I am artistic)

I definitely agree with the idea that an "artist" is an undefinable as "art." However, something that occured to me while reading this was that I used the word creative as a lever here. For me, there's creative art and there's art. A well constructed bridge with all of its supports and girders is "art", even if it was constructed from plans drawn up years before and merely copied in this manifestation. "Creative art," the kind I truly enjoy, is art which was created creatively (tongue twister)-- that person's unique ability shows through. Shakespeare, then, was clearly a creative artist.. I can "feel" his creative influence. Someone who translates Shakeseare to French, to me, is merely an artist.

And uh... that's all I got.

I'd consider myself an artist. :)

I used to work in a pottery studio with two people who made art their livelyhood and another woman who did it as a hobby. The one man who did it for an income thought himself to be an elitest, dragging on and on about people who considered themselves to be artists and then some intellectual junk, etc. Art/artists come in so many different forms, I don't think there's any way to really define who fits into it and who doesn't.

Personally the title of artist makes me uncomfortable, as does displaying my work, I don't know why...

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.

Alot of people said i'm artistic with my ability to be creative when building engines, as in fabricating parts, creating a scheme and the small touches and others say the opposite.

I agree with her. I think you are an artist. I like her definition as well. It's very good. I think an artists also puts a little of him/her/self in what he/she does whether it be style wise or personal and they also have a sense of pride and achievement with each finished piece.

I consider myself an artist but I guess being told you are one seals the deal really. If someone considers what you do art then it becomes art and you become the artist. I think Ngdawg is also an artist who creates beautiful things. Others here as well. I could list many

Asta!!

I agree with K-Wise, that's a good definition of what an artist is.

Although I think that the distinction between creative expression and specialist at a particular activity are too blurred, maybe in a poetic way you can say a scientist is an artist but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

I think that to this definition you could add, an artist is also someone who feels in their innermost that they are one.

Maybe Clavus' hesitation is in the fact that he doesn't see himself as one, because of social convention (you have to be accepted as one or live off art first, supposedly), and because perhaps in his heart the "artist" is not a need, and more an enjoyment and skill he posesses.

I have always felt the "need" to create things through art (painting, sculpting, photography, music, theatre), in a way that it is vital to my sanity. Art for me is a catharsis. But of course others perceive art differently, and don't think it should be or need be this.

But I think if you need to search outside yourself to know that you are an artist, then you can't be one in it's truest sense.

I like the definition of artist being able to present their idea to other people.

I also agree that it is largely subjective.

I think an artist is someone with a vision... an interpretation that they want to show and they use whatever mediums they can in order to show it. It is usually emotionally based, in my opinion. Art is created to evoke something. A feeling, an emotion. It can be awe, pain, regret, joy. But it is generally meant to evoke.

If you draw, doodle, or make t-shirts as a hobby, because it is fun it isn't necessarily 'art'. But it isn't necessarily 'not art' either. Does it evoke humor? Do they express a feeling about a particular topic? I think it's very possible.

I wouldn't mind being an artist. I want to be an artist of words. A writer. Yeah, yeah, everyone wants to be a writer these days. But I sit down to write, and there is nothing there. I don't think I have enough to say yet. But when I have something to say, I hope that I'll be able to write it.

What is an artist? Simple; an artist is one who creates art. Even someone who creates crappy art is an artist, but we should be honest and objective enough to acknowledge that crappy art is indeed crappy.

I'd like to be an artist, but my apartment really isn't set up for it. I have plenty of room as far as square footage is concerned, but the layout is all wrong for me to have some sort of art area. I'm looking for a house to buy, though, so this problem should be solved sooner or later.

I took two years of art classes in high school, and one semester of art in college. I hated art classes because they are just that: classes. They exist for the purpose of teaching students how to create art. This really sucks for me, since I don't like being told what to draw or how. The only reason I took art classes in high school is because I thought it would give me free time to draw and paint whatever I wanted, which wasn't really the case. By the time I got to college, I knew that I would hate art class, but I took it because it fulfilled a unit requirement.

After two and a half years of art class, I ended up with exactly two pieces of work that I decided were worth saving. One was a picture of Henry Rollins and the other was a picture of Chris Cornell. Both were done with white charcoal pencil on black paper and were pretty good considering they were done by a 16/17 year old with little formal art training.

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