It seems that lately I have been forced to question the definition of being an artist.
I mean, anyone can say "I am an artist, I love to paint, I love to draw, it makes me happy, I like to make pretty things." Anyone can say those things, but as David told me in the car yesterday during a passionate discussion, anyone can say "Look, I am a swimmer!" while sitting in a freaking kiddie pool.
Are you really an artist? I honestly cannot tell you that I know the purest formula for answering that question. In fact, sometimes I even doubt my own artistic legitimacy. In a way, it is equivalent to being a Christian and entertaining doubts about Christ. And that is okay. That is perfectly natural. That is expected. What disturbs me is when someone proclaims to be an artist when the work reflects nothing of that person.
No effort. No growth. No experimentation. A lack of honesty and personal investment, either conceptually or technically. An unwillingness to embrace the uncertain elements necessary in making art. Close-mindedness. [That is a big one.]
I believe that to be an artist, one must make sacrifices. One must be willing to let go of restrictions, preconceived notions, and most importantly, the urge to withdraw emotionally and conceptually from the work. To be an artist is to live in the work.
I was outraged yesterday when I learned that the majority of my classmates were disgusted by Egon Schiele's work simply because it was ugly.
UGLY!
Is this how we define art today? With words synonymical to pretty and ugly? I honestly do not understand this. I was mortified to learn that this was the attitude of those who have had the opportunity to create their own work and experience the significance of expression.
I mean, anyone can say "I am an artist, I love to paint, I love to draw, it makes me happy, I like to make pretty things." Anyone can say those things, but as David told me in the car yesterday during a passionate discussion, anyone can say "Look, I am a swimmer!" while sitting in a freaking kiddie pool.
Are you really an artist? I honestly cannot tell you that I know the purest formula for answering that question. In fact, sometimes I even doubt my own artistic legitimacy. In a way, it is equivalent to being a Christian and entertaining doubts about Christ. And that is okay. That is perfectly natural. That is expected. What disturbs me is when someone proclaims to be an artist when the work reflects nothing of that person.
No effort. No growth. No experimentation. A lack of honesty and personal investment, either conceptually or technically. An unwillingness to embrace the uncertain elements necessary in making art. Close-mindedness. [That is a big one.]
I believe that to be an artist, one must make sacrifices. One must be willing to let go of restrictions, preconceived notions, and most importantly, the urge to withdraw emotionally and conceptually from the work. To be an artist is to live in the work.
I was outraged yesterday when I learned that the majority of my classmates were disgusted by Egon Schiele's work simply because it was ugly.
UGLY!
Is this how we define art today? With words synonymical to pretty and ugly? I honestly do not understand this. I was mortified to learn that this was the attitude of those who have had the opportunity to create their own work and experience the significance of expression.
What more can I say? I am speechless.
I am moved.
2 comments:
my feeling collide with yours as you know for it is that resounding question that within this new age of contemporary-ness in the art world causes everyone to proclaim themselves as artists i can't help but ask myself, what makes you an artist. what made someone out there essentially call themselves an artist or someone else call them an artist. what is art? and like our class mates so-i think--blindly exclaimed, is it only the beautiful and serene and easy on the eyes that we file away in out minds as art--just because we like it. i too believe that it is not. for mostly the depiction of the actual, not made up or prettified, is in fact also artful. it is within itself beautiful in it's own audaciously honest quality.
to me. if one likes "pretty" art and discredits "ugly" art, then they need to open their eyes and look inward. not everything is pretty, is it?
Well of course the word art comes from the word artifice, meaning a guise or ruse. The only solid definition for artist I could find (google define:artist) boils down to "someone who creates art".
So, are you an artist?
A swimmer in a kiddie pool is just as much a swimmer as anyone else on one basic level: they can swim. From there, the basic question is how much do they swim, and for how long have they been doing so.
I understand the question as you are asking it, and it's pointless. "Am I living this abstract ideal that even I am unsure how to define?"
Simply create.
Post a Comment