I agree. If one believes one is an artist, one is. Then others can (if they so desire, and they usually do) form their own opinions about the quality of the art the artist is involved with.
I agree. If one believes one is an artist, one is. Then others can (if they so desire, and they usually do) form their own opinions about the quality of the art the artist is involved with....
OK - my difference to Beuys is the folowing : There is no need that others see you as artist.
There is no need to create something special. The Definition is : If you simply belive you are - you are indeed an ARTIST !
...
Sometimes the communication is with oneself, and does not need to be shown, so I am relunctant to use outside communication as a deciding criteria in defining what makes an artist an artist. In addition, we have no idea which art will communicate (and how) to viewers 20, 60, or 200 years from now. A 'failure' to communicate now could easily be an audience that was not ready yet for the message, and in 50 years be considered highly communicative and important.This is all about communicating. That means one person has to communicate to another in some mutually meaningful way. If you think you are an artist and you cannot communicate outside yourself....
The serious fact is the folowing : Real artist often have much too lot doubts.They can't realize their Art is real Art - so they doubt many years about their artwork. Their pricing is often much too low.I agree. If one believes one is an artist, one is. Then others can (if they so desire, and they usually do) form their own opinions about the quality of the art the artist is involved with.
Change it from "real artists" to just "artists" and I can agree.The serious fact is the folowing : Real artist often have much too lot doubts.....
This is awfully close to being a legend in one's own mind. A further distinction must be made. As far as future goes, what sort of timeline are you thinking, otherwise anything goes. I'm guessing that applicability of such a consideration is pretty limited statistically.Sometimes the communication is with oneself, and does not need to be shown, so I am relunctant to use outside communication as a deciding criteria in defining what makes an artist an artist. In addition, we have no idea which art will communicate (and how) to viewers 20, 60, or 200 years from now. A 'failure' to communicate now could easily be an audience that was not ready yet for the message, and in 50 years be considered highly communicative and important.
To become an artist has the need to intent
No.Do any of these questions matter? From an article at Lomography on the same blog:
1. Do you think about why some photos stay in the mind?
2. Are you willing to redefine your world?
3. Are you aware of visual relationships, including minute details?
4. Do you make photos that cannot be repeated?
5. Do you look within yourself for the benefit of your photography?
6. Do you push beyond the limits and confines of the mind?
7. Are you willing to face your fears?
Regards, Art
Do any of these questions matter? From an article at Lomography on the same blog:
1. Do you think about why some photos stay in the mind?
2. Are you willing to redefine your world?
3. Are you aware of visual relationships, including minute details?
4. Do you make photos that cannot be repeated?
5. Do you look within yourself for the benefit of your photography?
6. Do you push beyond the limits and confines of the mind?
7. Are you willing to face your fears?
Regards, Art
About a mile and a half. My 20 years is a bit short -- reasonable predictions can be made. After couple of generations, predictions I would say become nearly impossible -- though there are always lucky guesses.This is awfully close to being a legend in one's own mind. A further distinction must be made. As far as future goes, what sort of timeline are you thinking, otherwise anything goes. I'm guessing that applicability of such a consideration is pretty limited statistically.
Well it certainly must be engaging outside the artist's mind in any case.IDK i am certain there are people who just do their thing, they just make chairs, or tables or do-dads or photographs or cupcakes
and their intent is not to make "art" and even when people call them artists they deny it and say im not i just make
chairs or tables or do dads or photographs or cupcakes ...
there are plenty of people who believe they artists and make chairs or tables and do dads or photographs or cupcakes
and people shrug their shoulders and say nope, sorry ...
i don't think it has anything to do with intent but how the person and stuff made is perceived by other people
does it ?Well it certainly must be engaging outside the artist's mind in any case.
Nonsense. If you make art, then you're an artist. If you fix pipes, then you're a plumber. Artists are no more special than anyone else. The term artist doesn't elevate one above anyone else. It's merely a label affixed to your profession or vocation. It also doesn't carry with it any assurance that you're good at what you do. You can be a crappy artist, or a very good one. Just like there are good plumbers and bad ones. Calling yourself an artist doesn't mean you have excessive pride or unwarranted self confidence. It just describes that you attempt to make art.I make art, "artist" is a label others might apply to my work but it would be hubris to label myself that.
However, a bad artist is likely to cause far less trouble than a bad plumber.Nonsense. If you make art, then you're an artist. If you fix pipes, then you're a plumber. Artists are no more special than anyone else. The term artist doesn't elevate one above anyone else. It's merely a label affixed to your profession or vocation. It also doesn't carry with it any assurance that you're good at what you do. You can be a crappy artist, or a very good one. Just like there are good plumbers and bad ones. Calling yourself an artist doesn't mean you have excessive pride or unwarranted self confidence. It just describes that you attempt to make art.
I'd have to concur, unless the artist's medium is flamethrowers.However, a bad artist is likely to cause far less trouble than a bad plumber.
I'm a well driller's son and do my own plumbing but I don't call myself a plumber either.Nonsense. If you make art, then you're an artist. If you fix pipes, then you're a plumber. Artists are no more special than anyone else. The term artist doesn't elevate one above anyone else. It's merely a label affixed to your profession or vocation. It also doesn't carry with it any assurance that you're good at what you do. You can be a crappy artist, or a very good one. Just like there are good plumbers and bad ones. Calling yourself an artist doesn't mean you have excessive pride or unwarranted self confidence. It just describes that you attempt to make art.
The only thing keeping a knowledgeable (in the ways of plumbing) person from calling themselves a plumber are legal restrictions imposed by the trade. No such legal restrictions exist for most artistic trades. Again, if you create art and as you've said, others would qualify your work as art, then feel free to call yourself an artist.I'm a well driller's son and do my own plumbing but I don't call myself a plumber either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?