What is an artist?

James Rogers

James Rogers

It's like asking 'what is love'?
From my experience the word artist means different things to different people. For some, anyone who picks up a paint brush or lump of clay and creates something is an artist. For others, the creation needs to show signs of skill or talent before the title is bestowed upon the creator. Some people call themselves artists because they believe they are..... So, what is an artist?

In my little world, I only know of three artists. I knew two of them personally. Sure, I am aware of the masters that everyone agrees are great artists; Rembrandt, Picasso, Monet, Pollock, Michelangelo, and the like. One of the greatest Violinist in history, Paganini is a great artist too. As were composers Mozart, Bach,Chopin, Beethoven.... All great artists. One of the artists I knew personally was my mentor, Daniel. He did as much with me as he could, and I took from him all that he offered.. That doesn't make me an artist, only better at what I do than I otherwise would have been had I never met him. The artist in my little world that I didn't know personally is Hans Giger, the Swiss artist who left behind some of the most astoundingly original images ever set to canvas or paper or metal. Many people associate him with the creation of the alien in the movie Alien.

I think that by definition, to be able to imagine something that never was must require a component of mental illness. Creativity is a benign form of being off one's rocker, at least a little... Giger stated that the images he painted came to him in his nightmares. If you've ever seen a collection of his work, it certainly would not be hard to believe; brilliantly disturbing yet captivating..... My mentor was dealing with his own demons. He was a strange man that many people were drawn to yet at the same time feared. A sex addict to be sure. Someone who was friendly but didn't have any friends. Daniel once came up to me while I was sculpting something. I asked him what he thought. He looked at my work, then after a minute he turned to me and said 'It should read like a symphony. It should be like seeing music'. That's all he said then walked away. He didn't get technical or critical. He just left me with something to ponder. The rest was up to me. He was a great man. There are more stories I could tell about Daniel but I just wanted to mention him. In my eyes, he was a great artist. His work was exceptional, thought provoking, and showed who he was. I think Giger's work is the same. These two men were great artists to me.

I've always had a problem with people calling themselves artists. In my opinion, to be called an artist is a great title to be proclaimed by someone else. It's a title of honor. I've known plenty of people who call themselves artists because they went to college and studied it while also practicing. Again, I think a person should leave that for others to decide.

If you make and sell painting, are you an artist? Should you print that on your business card? Many people do print it on their card, but does it make them artists? Another friend of mine, Richard, is an amazing artist in my eyes but he does not think so. He once did some illustrations for me for a movie I was trying to produce in the 90s. He did the most incredible hand drawn color renderings of a female vampire, working from a description I gave him, mere words. He took those words and produced a number of drawing. I told him 'you are an incredible artist'. He responded 'I'm not really an artist. I'm more of an illustrator'. I was puzzled by his proclamation. I noticed that on one of the large pieces of paper he gave me with dozens of sketches all over it there were notes; pg126 pg 91 ..... I asked him about these little notes. He told me those were the page numbers from source material he used to come up with the final look of vampire woman. I realized that was why he didn't accept me calling him an artist; because he used source material; a nose from this picture, eyes from that picture. Perhaps to him, he didn't create anything, just put pictures together to match my vision. Hardly the case... I would argue that an artist can use source material but I don't think he thought so..

So, what is an artist?
 
Last edited:
Well, I think you nailed it when you said it's a word that means different things to different people.

I get all of your logic here. It all makes sense. The issue would be that the meaning is so subjective as to escape any specific definition. Are people that work at Subway actually "sandwich artists"? I think in general, at this point, the term has lost all meaning. Stravinsky was an artist, Michelangelo was an artist, but since then we've taken to calling anyone who bought a drum machine and hit play an artist.

Long story short, I think this word has been overused to the point where it's lost all meaning. I understand wanting to reserve a title for people that truly earned it, that makes sense. Still, even then what constitutes earning is also subjective. I think most Americans would call Miley Cyrus an artist. She's received artist awards, is ranked on the national charts for top artists, and makes her living from art. Here's the thing, other people write her songs, choreograph her dances, and the lyrics are just a copy paste of every other dumb country pop song that came before. So does yelling "lets have a party in the place where we live" to the exact melody of "Rockin in the USA" make her an artist? Statistically, far more people have said Miley Cyrus was an artist by the time she graduated college than called Vincent Van Gough an artist during his entire lifespan. I don't put a lot of stock in popular opinions. Take a look at the bell curve, and you'll see exactly what a popular opinion means.

I personally think you know when you're an artist. You create, you design, you innovate. I think your friend was an artist. Did VVG paint starry night and then say that the sky was the real artist, and he only copied it? Every artist draws from not only their imagination, but from their experiences in life. I see people caught up in some sort of ethical crisis about being completely original, and just shake my head. Beethoven and Mozart both used the 12 tone scale. It doesn't mean that they had nothing to add, simply because they built on top of the achievements of their forebearers. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I don't know of a great artist who didn't build upon the experiences provided by extant work.

As far as artistry and mental illness. I mean, that's impossible to quantify. My read on the world is that every single human being alive has been mentally ill to some degree, and that it's more about what degree than a yes or no thing. The sanest people I know often believe in ghosts, or have wierd OCD things, or mental hangups, or arrested development, or narcissism, or see the world in some Mercator projection distortion of itself.

Look at "The law of the instrument" for example. You can see this in epic fashion in our current society. Carpenters approach every situation ready to nail a board onto it. SJW's see every interaction with another human as a war against historical bigotry. Professional singers see a war break out in another country, and think the answer is to sing a song about it. In short, we all have a very distorted view of the world typically warped by our own interest, biases, and priorities. I think the default human state is one of insanity, and it could even be argued that the greatest artists were the ones who were the least insane. I actually believe that's closer to reality. Huey Lewis was a greater artist than Jackson Pollack IMO, because he could create something that people genuinely enjoyed, rather than simply selling people the stereotype of an artist that they had been taught to expect. I would reference my post about "The World of High Fashion"
 
Last edited:
Defining what is an artist is very much like trying to define philosophy. In contemporary use, philosophy is nothing more that someone's views pertaining to an area life; Your philosophy of business, of driving a car, of raising your kids. Both words have the same problem too. since everyone has a view on something; driving a car, raising kids then everyone is a philosopher.... and if everyone is a philosopher then no one is a philosopher.. Truth be told, a scientist is a philosopher.

I think the elusive component that is necessary and common to all true artists has little to do with the art they produce. The art could be considered the bi-product of that which makes a person an artist.
 
James Rogers said:
Defining what is an artist is very much like trying to define philosophy. In contemporary use, philosophy is nothing more that someone's views pertaining to an area life; Your philosophy of business, of driving a car, of raising your kids. Both words have the same problem too. since everyone has a view on something; driving a car, raising kids then everyone is a philosopher.... and if everyone is a philosopher then no one is a philosopher.. Truth be told, a scientist is a philosopher.

I think the elusive component that is necessary and common to all true artists has little to do with the art they produce. The art could be considered the bi-product of that which makes a person an artist.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that. Creativity is a mentality, and one that sometimes produces artistic results.

If I had to try and define what it really is, in a simple way, I'd say that a true artist is one who isn't following a template. We're all inspired by others, we're all building on prior experiences with other art, but it's not the same thing.

Basically, if you're trying to take the highway, you're not an artist. The real artist are the ones who leave the paved road to drive off into the forest, clearing their own path forwards to get to a place where no paved roads go. It's about whether you're following the crowd, or blazing a trail to a new destination.
 
Right. Agreed.. and there is no decision to get off the main road. It's just a natural extension of the person.

Eddie Van Halen was a gifted guitarist. An innovative musician. An artist. He didn't have a guitar teacher. He taught himself. In an interview he said the reason he plays the way he does (did) is because there was nobody there to tell him he was doing it wrong. LOL. How many rock guitarist now use the techniques that Eddie pioneered? Probably all. It was natural for him to get off the main road because nobody told him to stay on,,, or, if they did, he didn't listen.
 
Last edited:
James Rogers said:
Right. Agreed.. and there is no decision to get off the main road. It's just a natural extension of the person.

Eddie Van Halen was a gifted guitarist. An innovative musician. An artist. He didn't have a guitar teacher. He taught himself. In an interview he said the reason he plays the way he does (did) is because there was nobody there to tell him he was doing it wrong. LOL. How many rock guitarist now use the techniques that Eddie pioneered? Probably all. It was natural for him to get off the main road because nobody told him to stay on,,, or, if they did, he didn't listen.
Click to expand...
You pick an interesting case study. I personally studied his style for many years, and I'm sure you could say that my style while different, is highly derivitive of the new ground he broke.

There are some interesting aspects of EVH specifically that are relevant to this topic. You sort of mentioned it. If you go work through his old tabs, he just played notes that outright don't make sense. He did it pretty much constantly, never in the main chords, or supporting beams, but imagine an author that just typed random letters whenever a word wasn't significant to the plot. It's so wildly chaotic, and normally a trained guitarist would tell you it was "riddled with errors", but the incredible thing is that it works, and really well. The guy had a type of genius that I feel made aspects of music transparent to him.

You hit on something that I think is significant. With no guitar training, it wasn't just a lack of positive training, it was also a lack of negative training. When Eddie played a "wrong" note, it wasn't because he was "rebelling" he wasn't "challenging the system" or "breaking the rules". And why is that important? Because since this is all about originality, a huge percent of those trying to create art understand that they need to be original, and immediately take a path that's a challenge to the mainstream. They have a new identity, the "rebel". Here's the issue, when 40% of the population are "rebel outsiders that don't care about your stupid rules" then that also becomes a cliched stereotype, the exact thing that the people were trying to avoid when they became "rebels"

He did have classical piano training, so he did understand music theory, but viewed it as foundational rather than constraining.

Anyway, Eddie wasn't really trying to "fight the system" or anything. He just drank and played guitar about half his waking hours, and played whatever sounded cool.

Source - watching every interview with EVH on youtube.
 
Have you ever heard someone say about the thing they do, whether it's painting or sculpting or playing music or making movies that they do it because they have to. To me, that is very telling. It IS one of those things that makes a person an artist. They have to. They may not even want to some of the time but they can't stop themselves. Now, I don't think that compulsion is enough, but it is key. I know of a person with no particular talent for drawing who draws constantly. This is someone close to me. I believe he draws to hide from the reality of his life... I'm not sure what to make of that except to say it doesn't appear healthy.

As a general rule, I don't think of film directors as artists but I do think there are some; Spielberg, Wells, Kubrick, Cameron, Friedkin, Hitchcock, Fritz Lang. I don't know anything about Fellini. .. and believe it or not, I think George Romero was an artist. His body of work suggests it. He was on the fringe of the film making community but some of his movies like Knight Rider, Martin, and Bruiser suggest that if he were accepted by Hollywood, we would have created a classic or two to go along with Night of the Living Dead.
 
Last edited:
Yeah dude, George Romero was an artist. He saw things others didn't, he was ahead of his time, he had a unique vision that stood out. I can't imagine anyone thinking he wasn't an artist.

There is tremendous artistry available in film directing. As much or more than in any other type of art. It's just a lot easier to get overwhelmed by how much needs to be managed, and make something where the artistic side gets only a part of one's focus. Imagine if singers also had to juggle and do paperwork while singing. There would be a lot fewer great singers. They could have the same amount of talent but only a few could still show it amidst distractions.
 
Thanks, Nate. I took it down because I felt I was getting off track with the subject.

I was thinking, this thread started off on the wrong foot. I asked 'what is an artist?'. That is to say, what makes a person an artist. I could also ask 'who is an artist?'. That's a different question although similar. The thing is that both questions require the answer to another question before the conversation can take place with any kind of integrity.

What is art?

In general, it's the creation of something (beautiful/thought provoking) from nothing. It's a pretty broad definition that someone could argue encompasses just about everything. The person who designs an ergonomic flashlight could argue their design is art. A writer could easily state that their stories are art. Traditionally, it is assumed that art is confined to paintings, drawings and sculptures, but that may just be a societal constraint. With that in mind, if a novel is not art then, at least, the book cover may be. The guitar design may not be considered art but the finish applied to the wood may be. Who makes the decision what art is and what is only a process. Me, as a person who has created things from nothing most of my life, I would not say the flashlight design, no matter how unique, is art, unless maybe it included elaborate inlays and non-essential surfaces that would allow someone to look at it as not only a flashlight but also a nice 'sculpture' worthy of display.

I use to think I knew what art is, Who and what an artist is. Now I'm pretty sure I was working under the assumption that everyone thinks like me.

So, unless we can define what art is, the conversation really has no point.

On a side note, I was surprised that nobody but you and I were willing to discuss this. Next time I'll just ask "what's everyone's favorite flavor of ice cream?" :)
 
Last edited:
James Rogers said:
On a side note, I was surprised that nobody but you and I were willing to discuss this
Click to expand...

Gatekeeping who or who isn't an artist is an enormous waste of time
the idea of debating this kind of pointless crap repulses me.

nothing wrong with other people doing it, but its not how i want to spend any of my time
 
Last edited:
It was just a conversation, my friend. No need to take offense. Did you ever read the book 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'? There was a similar conversation there. The protagonist spent a lot of time trying to define quality. What is quality?.. It eventually drove him mad.

  • I am not a gatekeeper.
  • This is a very old conversation that has been going on since well before my time on this planet. It is hardly pointless.
  • I do understand that some people are repulsed by the exploration of the constructs human-kind has put in place.
... again, no offense. I hope you're having a good day :)
 
Sean, You're taking my words out of context. I said that until we define what art is, the conversation has no point. That merely means that I wanted to shift focus from 'what is an artist?' to 'what is art?'

Indietalk, I really don't understand. You say nothing when one of your moderators verbally assaults me then caps the thread to keep from ironing out any misunderstanding yet you laugh at this thread as though asking a group of creative people something about art is a joke. By the way, I did apologize to Mara for our misunderstanding.... She responded by telling me to fuck off.
 
James Rogers said:
Sean, You're taking my words out of context. I said that until we define what art is, the conversation has no point.
Click to expand...

Personally I think that I included the context...
I said "So, unless we can define what art is" in your quote, so IDK how that is taking you out of context but whatever, I'm not being too serious in this thread i was just answering your question on why nobody else was participating. It's seen as a pointless waste of time by me, even if you define art.
 
James Rogers said:
So, unless we can define what art is, the conversation really has no point.

On a side note, I was surprised that nobody but you and I were willing to discuss this.
Click to expand...
Not possible for me to join in coz I've been on the road since Friday (a paved road, with white lines and signposts and everything, so I'm obviously not an artist ... :scared:) but while keeping a firm directorial grip on the steering wheel, I was thinking that I should start a thread on the topic of AI with the title "but is it Art?"

🤔 I got pulled over by a car load of French customs officials this afternoon, coming back into the country, so maybe I look like an artist? Does that count?
 
CelticRambler, sorry to read you got hassled by some customs officers.

This isn't about classifying people. It's about sharing opinions. Just opinions. There really are some people in the world who still believe that conversation is good and sharing opinions is good. You brought up a good question, one that will probably be debated heavily, if not now then in months and years to come; Is AI art? There will be a lot of opinions on that one, but let's remember, they are just opinions. The makings for good conversation.
 
Last edited:
James Rogers said:
CelticRambler, sorry to read you got hassled by some customs officers.

This isn't about classifying people. It's about sharing opinions. Just opinions. There really are some people in the world who still believe that conversation is good and sharing opinions is good. You brought up a good question, one that will probably be debated heavily, if not now then in months and years to come; Is AI art? There will be a lot of opinions on that one, but let's remember, they are just opinions. The makings for good conversation.
Click to expand...
Nobody is trying to persecute or stifle you James, talk away.
I'm just PERSONALLY not interested in touching this conversation with a 10ft pole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top