At a bar in Williamsburg, disturbed at a conversation happening next to me. So. I thought I'd take this moment to pose a question: Why would one person call themselves an artist? It's something that's made me sqeamish for a long time. I dunno...
Posted with LifeCast
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, what's an artist?
And is it so bad to be one?
Is it okay for someone to call him/herself that, or does one have to wait for others to bestow it upon him/her?
Don't Socratic Method me. Answer the question!
Alright. I'll put a period at the end of this one.
I think people call themselves artists because they want to identify with what they believe is art. If I see a play or read a book that I believe has artistic merit, and I decide to explore my own interpretations of what I saw or read, then I am an artist. That's something I cannot escape.
Sometimes people seem to ONLY be "artists" in relation to the "type" of art to which they subscribe. (When I say "type" I mean different ideas or movements within an artistic discipline.) So when it comes to recognizing something outside of their "type" as art, these people have a difficult time grasping that something other than what they know as art can still be labeled as such.
I like to call these people "punks."
I believe true artists can recognize artistic credibility and importance in the widest range of artistic media and forms. The hip hop producer from Chicago can marvel at Pink Floyd. The hip rocker from Michigan loves The Roots. The Polynesian sculptor is the biggest Star Trek fan in her time zone, and so on.
Ultimately, it seems that it's up to the artistic community to determine who is or is not an artist. Who is the community supporting? If someone decides to call themselves an artist, they better do it with a real sense of awareness and humility. Because if the community senses any maleficence whatsoever, that person's claim to be an artist will be immediately forfeited.
I don't know if this answers you question. Does it?
.
"As an Artist (capital A) I think blah blah blah..." is what I was hearing when I made this post. That aggravates me. It had none of the "awareness and humility," as you so beautifully put it. I was only trying to solicit responses, not so much answer it I guess, when I posted. Spark dialogue if you will.
So yes, it does.
And thanks.
I was also kind of drunk when I did it. Mobile blogging is a dangerous thing and I expect will get me into way tighter spots than this one. Eek.
The gross subtext of the entire grating conversation (very one-sided, at that) was something like,
"As an Artist, I think blah blah blah about how this person's work is less relevant or important or even 'cool' than mine for whatever reason even though actually I do kind of like it but denigrating it makes me feel like my work is valid or at least not crappy even though I know it is but if I admitted that to myself everything I've constructed around it would fall completely to pieces leaving me broken, drunk and confronted with the fact that I'm actually going to have to work for the rest of my life."
I am positive I react so strongly to this stuff because I know the feeling and it is scary. But the artistic community is rife with it. Perhaps my desire to "open it up for discussion" (read: express my distaste for it), is because it is a fear of mine as well.
Thanks for taking the bait.
Yeah The Roots!
Post a Comment