Quote:
Originally Posted by driveway
I disagree. Being an artist doesn't require your ability to create something that most people can't - that's being a technician or a craftsperson. Being an artist requires three things:
Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas.
Actually following through on your ideas and doing them. It's all well and good to have an idea for a peice of art, but Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is art not because he was the first to think of calling an ordinary object art, but because he was the first to actually do so.
Actually living as close to your artistic ideals as possible. This is the hardest part of being an artist. You can't just paint a picture and call yourself an artist. You're a painter, sure, but probably not an artist. You actually have to comport yourself in day-to-day life in a way that compliments whatever conclusions you've drawn about life and choose to express through your art.
That's why Bruce Springsteen is an artist and Britney Spears isn't.
|
This is a very fine line we are walking, this is an extremely subjective topic. I agree with your statement:
Having ideas no one else has had, or coming up with new ways to present old ideas
Except that one would have to have the skill to execute these ideas, otherwise you just have a creative thought. Even still that wouldn't always make you an "artist". I believe just because you claim something to be art doesn't mean it should be nor does it make you an artist.
Duchamp's fountain is a famous piece of art yes, but a urinal with a signature? the craftsman that made it or the designer should be credited with that piece of art before Duchamp. Would the fountain piece even be considered art had he not painted "Nude descending a staircase"? That piece took something I believe defines an artist:
an eye for detail, space and shape that you first understand and then transfer into a creation whether that be a painting, drawing, sculpture, etc. The style is irrelevant but the understanding is key. Which you can tell Duchamp has otherwise he could not create this piece.
It all comes down to your individual idea of what is an artist and art. I consider Duchamp an artist based on the work I've seen (ie nude on staircase), but not all of his pieces I would consider art, again simply based on my definition. I agree with living your ideals and creating art for that reason whatever it may be, but in my mind if you don't have the talent and understanding to pull of a still life I don't consider you an artist.