Talk:Artist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | Class: This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
"who employs creative talent": this is questionable. There are certainly artists without talent, or, it could certainly be argued by some people that there are. --Daniel C. Boyer and everyday artists with no talent but childy manners are taken on colomns for money exchange, concepts aren't art. creativity isn't enought but new expression reorienting way of finding mind or soul is.
It seems that you have an axe to grind here. although I agree with you that the page is a poor example when you consider the importance of artists in relation to both world and local culture. I have to disagree with your interpretation of both creativity and talent.
first 'talent' is an ability. Talent is not a competitive range, we all have it, all be it to a greater or lesser extent.
second the word creativity stems from the latin 'creare' to produce - It is more widely understood to mean some form of innovative production - again this is not exclusive we all can do it, or rather DO it in some aspect of our daily lives, even if it is simply in dressing, parenting, or making food.
So to recap - Creative Talent is essentially anyones 'abilty to create'
Clearly concepts are something that we all have the ability to create - this page is proof enough of that - 2 concepts both created.
As for wether that makes one an artist or not has been a matter of some debate. and with most debate the telling result is that it shows the perspective of those doing the debating. It seems that you assume that 'Artist' is a special term confered on those that 'deserve' it somehow. my stance is one that folows the line that Artist is simply a badge that can, when worn, give you permission to do what you might not ordinarily do. we should all be allowed to be artists even if only for our own pleasure.
Now of course when Art is treaded as a commodity then it follows that the artists must be of limited number, otherwise we'd all be doing it, and then how would the dealers and galleries make any money. the way they limit the number of artists is by making art seem difficult and obscure. It seems you want the best of both worlds - a distant artistic elite and a way of finding mind and soul. If you keep your artists as seperate dwellers in ivory towers they can be admired from afar, but wont help anyone understand mind and soul as much as if they too can partake of being an artist themselves.
As for the media coverage of ones that you dont feel deserving of it, chances are that somebody else does. If you dont like it dont read it, who will benefit from your resistance to it?
I would suggest that creativity is enough - the pressure for everyone to find a 'new expression' has led to the incoherent fragmentation of modernism and post modernism and in turn caused the very issue it seems that you are objecting to. when artists where simply trained colourmen and artisans the goals were clear "is this a better painting than the last". but then that is a painters view and Artist is a wider term. So go out there and BE an artist yourself, create better stuff (in whatever feild you know) with all of YOUR talent. you may not get national recognition, but your world will be a better place.
DavidP 19:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] major rewrite of artist page
The previous page was cursory - so I have rewritten the page and in doing so tried to keep any worthwhile content from the previous page - the two comments above relate to that previous page. the page was also listed in the PNA list - I have removed it from that list, as now I believe it only requires cleanup and of course some more input. DavidP 00:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed rewrite
Artist is a subjective term which describes a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, their endeavors.
Most often, the term describes those who create in a cultural context, such as engaging in drawing, sculpting, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking and music — people who use imagination, and talent or skill, to create works of aesthetic value. , especially in the fine arts. Art historians and art critics define artists as those who produce art within a recognised provenance.
Many people use the term to denote highly skilled people in non-fine"arts" activities, as well — crafts, medicine, alchemy, mechanics, mathematics, defense (martial arts) and architecture, for example. The designation often applies to people skilled at nefarious or questionable activities, too — like "scam artist" or "bullshit artist."
Billions of books, articles, essays and theses are written, acedemic courses created, and café discussions held in an effort to define "art" and "artist", and yet, there is no consensus amongst humans about what constitues "art" or who is, or is not, an "artist".
Most often, the discussions focus on the differences between "artist" and "technician" or "artisan," "fine art" and "applied art," or what constitues art and what does not.
Western culture widely accepts that anyone can call themselves an "artist", however posterity ultimately decides whether the label fits.
The Oxford English dictionary, cites the broader meanings of the term "artist,"
- A learned person or Master of Arts.
- One who persues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry.
- A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice - the opposite of a theorist.
- a follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic.
- one who makes their craft a fine art.
- one who cultivates one of the fine arts - traditionally the arts presided over by the muses.
(referenced from: C. T. Onions (1991). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Clarendon Press Oxford. ISBN 0-19-861126-9. )
In Greek the word "techně" means "art." In Latin, derived from the Greek word, "art" is "tecnicus", from which the English words technique, technology, technical are derived. So, though the words have evolved over millenia, their root is the same.
[edit] See also
* Lists of artists * Wikipedia category: Artists
--sparkit (talk) 00:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Tonight's edits are marked with strikeout for what I took out and underline for what I changed or added.
--sparkit (talk) 03:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Some more tweaking. It occurs to me that the myth of the "starving artist" could be discussed in this piece. Comments?
--sparkit (talk) 18:12, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sparkit. a good edit i think, I didnt have the time to give the page the attention it required and am glad that someone clearly has. having said that I would like to add a balancing para to your ending comment that refers to posterity - which I agree with but feel is only true from the perspective of an art historian. the balance i would suggest would aim to differentiate between the historians view that artists are the subject of study (when notable enough) and the process based perspective of the artist whose subject of study is the form and content of their work. the reason that I feel that this is important is that I find that artists are often spoken of as though they dont begin to exist until they are dead - which as i'm sure you will agree is an oxymoron. in reality this amounts to a situation similar to the classic "does he take sugar" syndrome. my interest here is permisive.
Surely the latin word ars is seperate from the greek techne which was indeed adopted by latin to mean 'craft' in direct contrast to art.
and finaly we must be careful to consider usage of terms such as 'plastic arts' 'fine arts' (which are both rather dated) 'visual arts' etc. they are often culturaly specific buzz words and tend to draw the subject away from its broader context (poetry, performance, and even martial) into specific areas (usually the visual arts) that are best linked to. (ever noticed the american preoccupation with all things turn of the century french - and the strange status implications of the term 'fine art' ?)
DavidP 03:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, David! I feel a bit bleary this evening, so I'll come back to this tommorrow. I think I understand what you mean about posterity deciding the importance or impact of an artist.
- The etomology of the word, though interesting, seems nearly irrelevant. However, I left it in, and perhaps misinterpreted what is written in the posted article.
- Thanks for pointing out the broader context. I've cut some of the references out.
- (I have noticed the American preoccupation with turn-of-the-century French culture, particularly in myself. ;) )
- Please, David and everyone, add to or change what I've drafted above.
[edit] Starving Artists...
I think there is a website devoted to "starving artists"... Starving Artists. And I just found another site that relates... The Starving Artist's Gateway to the WWWeb.
It is true that there are "starving artists"... mostly because they do not know how to make a living from their work. Some artists also just do not want to market their work for personal reasons as well.
Many artists have to support themselves doing non-art jobs, like waiting tables in order to support themselves. This does not mean that their art is "bad"... it just means that they have most likely not been discovered yet.
I work on a site called Art.Net and work with artists all over the world, helping them to get exposure for themselves and their art via the Internet and WWWeb. And I have to say, there are alot of good artists out there just making ends meet (or not!).
Also, in history, there has been the case of artists dying poor and only after their deaths, being discovered and considered as great artists. And some famous artists of their day have died as paulpers... look at Mozart!
Would be happy to help write this section of the article. Just let me know where you would like it added. It would also be nice to have a section for external links so that artists could point to their sites from this page... and sites could be referenced that relate to artists.
- lile 20:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)--
Webmaster/Artist of Art.Net
- It is also true that there are or have been starving mathematicians, politicians, dieticians and even in the case of howard hughes millionaires. but there is no overwhelming desire to add a section to those pages. Why on earth is the ability to provide oneself with food a valid adjunct to the profession of 'artist' - If you think about it for a little while you will realise that it is part of the mythology created by collectors, to work up the price of the job lot of paintings they bought cheap from so&so's widow. It actually has almost no bearing on the encyclopeadic content of the artist article. before we start adding 'artists with cats' or artists with 'green front doors' lets sort out the rather scattered info that we do have. DavidP
[edit] Self-appointed artists - the emperor's new clothes
These observations come from 30 years studying, working in, teaching, and observing, the art world. I think for truths sake they have to be said, even though they will shatter peoples pre-conceptions and threaten to burst bubbles.
1) Anyone can call themselves an artist, even though their work is no better than what a bright ten year old could do. First example: I once saw an exhibition by an 'artist' next to an exhibition by local school children, and the kids work was a lot better. Second example: the local council in my area has dumped a lot of large concrete budgies in the heathland near where I live, with little signs next to them explaining that they are suppossed to be some kind of local bird, although they do, as I said, look like very crudely made budgie-shapes produced by another ten-year old. These eyesores spoil what was previously a beautiful area. A photo of the so called 'artist' in the local paper showed him wearing a baseball cap and a "hoodie" without any mention of any art training. I do wonder, rightly or wrongly, if he received his training in a HMP. See the discussion for Aldeburgh, Suffolk, UK for a home-grown theory of why we have to suffer these kitsch sculpture eyesores.
2) When I was once a school supply-teacher at an dreadfully bad UK school, so bad it was featured on tv two or three times, the thick lazy aggressive kids were encouraged to do art and pursue artistic careers, because doing art requires the least amount of work and you can give them any grade you like (the school was desperate to improve its exam results). They would have made decent plumbers, instead they chose the more prestigeous option of seeking to be artists - in other words choosing a lifetime of unemployment.
3) When I was working in an art college, one of the so-called artists I had to work with was the most stupid person I've ever had any dealings with, so stupid that he was very nearly mute and it took him eight to ten seconds (literally) to reply in one or two words to even the simplest routine question. (I do wonder if that was an effect of drug use perhaps?). Most of the other staff were not very bright either.
4) Being known as an "artist" has a lot of prestige, so people choose that label for themselves rather than the more honest description of "unemployed lay-about".
I have been thinking how I could condence this view and put it in the main article, as at the moment the article is too precious. Any journalist etc. who'd like to copy these sentiments for an article is welcome to do so.
Final thought: even chimpazees and elephants can produce art.
[edit] Dumb word
The only thing that seems to connect 'artists' is the desire to be seen as 'artists' - it is more than a little sad. Art is a sad word too and better avoided.Pliny 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pejorative Term
The word “artists” is often used as a pejorative term especially by more conservative people or people who do not value either art or the artists who make art. Usually the arguments against artists are that they are lazy or egotistical. The main opposition to them seems to be from individuals who do not share the same values as artistic people.
[edit] Pejorative
Notation of use of the word 'artist' in a derogatory vein is beyond trivial; nearly any and every noun describing a profession, career, or interest can take on a negative spin (he's just a 'mechanic'; they are 'politicians'; she is a 'feminist'), and such usage is anomalous. To note this does nothing to add to our understanding of the word or its deeper meanings. That is why I deleted the satement. However, it has been reinstated, and I have no interest in an editing skirmish.
JNW 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. That statement seems out of place at the end of an article. If it must be included, it could belong under a section addressing the public's conceptions of artist and artist stereotypes, which would also include other conceptions of artists.
[edit] Examples
It is fine to have examples of arts and artists. Of course they are only examples, not statistically representative (what kind of statistical approach would be adequate?). Many encyclopedias have such lists, for instance, lists of types of insects with one of each type. They illustrate the extention of the word and add interest to the article. 80.225.9.154 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I changed john keats with pablo nerud at the voice "poet".. it gives more a glance of internationalism IMHO... --Sailko 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
More to the point - the Arts area has extensive lists of artists already - shouldn't this article be referring to those rather than trying to create a new list of a somewhat arbitrary nature. I'd suggest this section needs a structure and headings and links to the places where rather better lists can be found. (sorry forgot to include signature!) Cosmopolitancats 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody actually think that this list holds any value? By whose criteria were the examples chosen? I vote to keep a list of types of artist and delete references to individuals - those exist in the lists of artists which exist anyway
I suggest we make more links to the existing categories of artists and in so doing connect this article up to the rest of the arts articles and make it a more coherent with the rest of wikipedia. Cosmopolitancats 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
eerm - the guidance says 'be bold' so I was and removed all the names of individuals. This article is about the nature of an artist not individual artists as exemplars - particularly when could think of much better examples for some of those listed.Cosmopolitancats 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citation of references
This article needs to focus effort on the citation of appropriate references for what has been written.
Should what has been written be removed if no references are forthcoming?
All references also need to be included in a references section - which I'm adding, along with an external links section. Cosmopolitancats 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I added more dictionary definitions. I think this is the way to go - provide verifiable views as to what an artist is rather than make it up for ourselves. Content may be fine - lack of citation when it resources exist isn't. (forgot sinature again!) Cosmopolitancats 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
