Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
What is an Artist?
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I think we may have discussed this subject in the past but it's always good for another airing. What do we mean when we use the word 'artist'?
To kick it off, one view is that if a work of 'art' is presented in photorealism style without any interpretational skills then, without devaluing the skill levels involved, the artist is really a craftsman.
So what do others think?
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
A synonym for craftsman is artisan, so I looked up the origin of 'artisan' It would appear that artisan is from the same word in French, which in turn comes from the Italian artigiano. Not surprisingly the Italian word is based upon the Latin artitus, the past participle of artire. Artire could be translated as 'instruct in the arts.' So is a craftsman is an artist too? I would argue that sculpture is undoubtedly art, but to my mind you have to be quite a skilled craftsman to be a sculptor!
Posted
Opinion: If you create something individual, however good or bad, you're an artist. If you make something to a plan you're a craftsman. How good a craftsman varies, a only a good standard will pay a living.
Art is too big a field to be tied to one word. You can't judge a painting against a sculpture any more than you can a sculpture against a piece of pottery, a carving or a photograph. They are all art of a sort. Only like objects, methods etc can be judged against each other if, indeed they need be judged at all. For me, art is about the artist and what they present/achieve in their work. Even this, due to tastes varying so much is down to personal preference, and is there a common denominator on that? It's a little different for me as I have never regarded myself as an artist, just an enthusiastic amateur painter who has never sold my work, and I give due credit to others as their work appeals. It's a tough field I'd imagine, to make a living at because of the sheer volume of competition. I even find titles like "Artist of the year" a little misleading as a different set of judges may see things entirely differently than the present set..
If I had my time to come again, I might decide to be an artist ...........or a golfer, or a professional ballroom dancer....who knows? 😆
Posted
I've been interested in art for as long as I can remember, and tried to make pictures for just as long. I read books and watch programs about art, even art that is not my 'thing'. Always have. The more I've tried to learn, the less I seem to know. I'm not even sure I know what 'ART' is. The art that gets the attention is no longer art, it's a commodity, an asset...like shares in energy, property etc. Only the obscenely rich can buy it, they don't buy it because they like it, they buy it because it's the done thing to do in their rarified circle, and because they expect to make money from it. So that area of 'art' is dead to me, because it's ceased to be art.
It's a much overused word....the 'art' of tea-making, bakery, seduction etc, etc etc. My view is that it's all about craft, to be called a crafts-person is praise indeed. You definitely need craft to make pictures and carve sculpture. I think it takes time for artifacts to become 'ART'. If in a hundred years time, people are still describing a piece as a 'masterpiece, then that is art. Will Jeff Koons giant plastic looking teddy bear still be considered art in 100 years time, will Damien Hirst's dotty pictures, or his sawn -off shark, be considered art? Who knows?
For now, we all have our own personal ideas about what constitutes art for us. I had two illustrated books for Christmas. They're art for me. As for the stuff I make myself, I'm still trying to get the 'craft' bit right. There's a fascination in making marks even if you don't achieve the personal standards you hope for. It's time well spent.So for me art IS all about the craft.
Lew
Posted
Art and craft are often combined in the same person. A painter needs some skill and technique to produce his/her work and is therefore, both an artist and a craftsperson.
There have been some stained glass artists, e.g. John Piper, who do not touch the glass or produce the work. Their work is to produce a design to give to the craftsman, who interprets the art work.
Posted
Well said Lew. Your comments about 'The art that gets attention' are something I think many of us have thought, but never been able to put into words. Taken with Wanderer69's remarks about judging art, which comes down to ranking it against a set of predetermined, but ultimately literally baseless, 'rules' that change with time, we get a good perspective on the history of 'Art'. Many moons ago, in my formal boys only grammar school education, art was painting, craft was making things out of clay (and I think not really deemed art) and woodworking was something I dreaded. I never was, and still am not, one who has any great skill when it comes down to using my hands, I am no craftsman, but I enjoy painting. Even so, if I am to believe what I read elsewhere, I, like Wanderer69, am only one picture short of selling the same number of paintings as Van Gogh did in his life time. Look at his paintings now. Be we craftsmen, artists, or just amateur dabblers, there is hope for us all yet.
Posted
I once stood in front of a Choir stall in Malaga Cathedral and gazed in silent wonder at the amazing wood carvings there. I am also spellbound at the works of people like Grinling Gibbons, Roidin and Bernini etc. Artist, craftesmen? I think I'll settle for "magical" and not worry beyond that.
Posted
Like ‘creative’ and it’s derivatives, I find art, artist etc. are words best avoided if at all possible. But it’s not always possible of course. To try to define art or artist by linking it with craft, merely passes the buck because we then have to define craft. It becomes circular unless we rely on the culturally accepted norms, which is what language is all about of course.
I have a friend who spent her PhD looking to define art. She has just completed a book which would have been titled ‘What is art?’ but that title was taken. It’s a very, very brutal and inadequate summary but she concludes that art can be (not is) anything that someone attaches meaning and/or emotional connection to and involvement with.
Posted
Here I go,probably in bother again: 😆
Whilst not disagreeing, I think that's a pretty broad ( and rather obvious) view that can apply to many things in life, religion, politics, sport, poetry etc, being just a few. 20,000 year old cave painting is also defined as cave art, so putting a tag on it now is rather late in the day. I'll risk the slings and arrows by saying I find that a little of an all encompassing description that could/does include unmade beds, stuffed sharks and piles of bricks and not "art" in the defined sense of painting, sculpture etc ( I include all levels of this and not just professional ones ). I'm not even sure I find photography as art in the strict sense rather than a skill. You don't find many "The Scream" items in it?
The definition "skill" in art is related to approval by such a wide field of taste, age, topic etc, that (as I said previously) "art", although being around for even longer than me,(honest) is a very big and elastic word that should really have and adjective attached as a definition, like digital, etc,etc. Art no doubt, but needing clarification. There's just been a shining example on the gallery (no names mentioned) of artists needing an audience to relate to and praise as well as their own satisfaction. You cannot command someone to like things. Van Gogh started painting alone in fields etc for his art. His paintings now are admired and loved by many and coveted by others for purely mercenary reasons. I'd love to hear his version of what art is.
As ever, just views....
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
Okay - how about:
Art can be (not is) anything that THAT MAN CREATES TO WHICH someone attaches meaning and/or emotional connection to and involvement with.
But then to my mind unmade beds (piles of bricks etc) specifically created for display do carry an amount of artistic input no matter how small that input is.
Does the definition require further tweaking/expansion? It would be great to get something we could all agree upon but I guess that would be like agreeing on Brexit.
Posted
I don't think you'll ever get a definition for art that pleases everyone, but the one from that book comes pretty close. Maybe we should adopt the avante guard/ establishment's mantra when justifying some of the more outlandish nonsense that 'they' call art. Tracy Ermin used it about the scruffy bed she entered for the Turner Prize a few years back. 'It's art because I say it's art.' (One obviously,
just escaped from the lunatic asylum, turned 'art critic', described it as her 'self portrait.')
I guess there's a tiny mote of truth in 'it's art because I say it's art', because we all have our personal likes, dislikes, and ideas. I'm just glad that art IS around, it's fascinating...and I take a perverse delight in the 'nonsense/non art'.
Lew (puzzled as ever by art.)
Posted
This has proved to be a great discussion and it seems to me, having read the comments, that the closest we can ever get to a definition is something like: whatever constitutes art in the mind of the beholder.
In other words there is no definitive answer - all things to all men but not necessarily in that order.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2