Why do I have a problem with people calling themselves artists...

way off...an artist is any person that creates art...good or bad does not matter


someone can have a child and be a horrible father but he is still a father.....

horrible artists are still artists

 

I can swing with that. To me the two important variables are:

Do you devote most of your time to it? Do you earn a steady market income for it?

Even in Van Gogh's case, his paintings are super financially sought-after after his death. And that's why most of us know him.

Edit: Although, being a father is not necessarily an activity. It may be just the biological fact of siring a child. Or, it may be the hands on, day-to-day doldrums fact of raising a child (whether you do it well or not). Go to bed! Brush your teeth! Here's your lunch money! Back home at twelve!

I think the two are deserving of distinction.

Edit: Ok, I'm going to change it to --- Do you attempt to earn a steady market income for it? That should include the unsuccessful artists who are still artists nevertheless.

 

Just a note about Van Gogh.Once he decided to become a painter he was super committed and prolific.He worked very hard and produced nearly 2000 paintings and drawings.It is no accident that he retrospectively became so revered as an innovator.He wasn't just some random guy that got "lucky" after his death.He knew many key players in the art scene in Paris at the time and was starting to get some good press and feedback just before his untimely death.He was a master draughtsman and his use of color in oil paintings was revolutionary.I admit that the prices his work now commands is obscene,but that's not his fault.There will never be another like him in the history of art.His dedication and aesthetic vision and dedication to his craft remains an inspiration.He was also a highly literate and deeply thoughtful man,as testified by the book "Letters to Theo",a book of correspondences with his art dealer brother Theo,which I highly recommend to anyone interested in this great if troubled man.

 

its a good question. what makes some one an artist or what makes think someone is an artist, isnt all are subjective and personal there for ig if some was to look at some one and see an artist then they must be to that person. for example i look at daemon hurst and see a shit con merchant taking the piss why others see a artist and a genius. i always say if you create something that inspires people touches and communicates to people then your an artist. but one mans artist is another mans shit drawer so ig its all personal

 

andy warhol...ive seen that footage of him doing screen printing in ''the factory''.....

i'm a former screen printer...anyone can blow up a photo ans print it with the wrong colors and bad registration....i fired a few people for doing exactly that....

but his stupid soup pictures are still selling

 

I think the one area of artistry where I may actually disagree with the artist's move to get paid, is graffiti. Still figuring out my feelings about the street-art move to capitalism.

 

^the purests hate the dudes that are doing shows now

 

Yeah. There's a definite divide in the community over the trend.

 

There you go. Sounds like a real artist to me. I don't think he could have painted his most famous painting with such expertise if it weren't for the 2000 paintings before it and much trial and error.

Does that mean I can't be artsy-fartsy and just pursue painting as a weekend hobby? No! I can totally just dibble if I want to and leave it at that. But why would I want to put myself up on the same block as Van Gogh & Co.?

Sounds like charlatanism to me!

 

This is an excerpt from a real interview from my favorite musician, Frank Zappa. Seems to be relevant to the thread topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWXUatVuxQg

 

ya, i agree people with real talent are definitely their own best critics as any work is never completed in the eyes of a real artist until they decide it is.people sellin' used panties ? now thats a whole other ballgame ha! ha! let me know when your makin' the next great pie. yum!

 

I'll make sure you're invited, roamy. :biggrin:

 

niceone! thanks cher :2thumbsup:

 

What if you got the money for those art supplies from an elaborate hoax involving bigfoot? Then you can call yourself a con artist. Which is one of the lesser appreciated schools of art.

 

Some people are more creative than others; is this not the case? How is it wrong for them to recognize this fact?

What if a person said "I'm an amateur artist because I'm creative, but I can't draw my thoughts that well yet?

 

It is said to take ten thousand hours to become virtuous at a craft.
Crafty though we may be.

 

The problem with making money for your art is that you are still alive and can make more. You need to be dead to be worth anything.

 

^^^ This!

 

Depends on the art!

I know one fellow that his only job is his poetry and he supports him and his grandma off of it, comfortably.

My SO has made decent cash this year on his poetry. I know many more, who did way better in profit. It's freakn' great. A lot of work but it extra nice to see a financial pay off for something you love.

Back when I was bagpiping, I made some decent cash as well. Weddings, funerals, events. Though I'd certainly ran into my share of cheap-asses who wanted to undervalue my skill.

We are alive and making cash! Ain't quitting our day jobs but eeking it out.

 

If someone takes joy in their craft or creativeness, they should be able to call themselves an artist.

It is subjective at best as to who is or is not worthy of being labeled an artist.