Writer's Block: An Artist Is...

[packbat]

Do you consider yourself an artist? View other answers

An artist is someone who makes art. But what does it mean to be "someone who makes art"?

I can draw a picture from life. I can play the piano from sheet music. I can write, given a topic. In any of these cases, I may or may not be making 'art'.

On the other hand, I rarely feel the impulse to make art. I often feel the impulse to communicate - hence the blog - but communication, though it be creation of a sort, is not necessarily art, and I am certainly nothing like ursulav, cadhla, or kevinpease, whose muses will grab them by the metaphorical lapels and yell "create, create, create!" Or even like Seth, someone who just ... goes to work, automatically. Most of the time, if I produce art, I only produce art as a tool for other purposes.

So, I make art incidentally, not habitually. Does that make me an artist, or not?

Comments

What you are vs. what you do

[zhurnaly.livejournal.com]

I like the comment by Judson Jerome on what makes a poet:

"It helps to stop worrying about what you are and concentrate on what you do. If you think of a poet as a person with some special qualifications that come by nature (or divine favor), you are likely to make one of two mistakes about yourself. If you think you've got what it takes, you may fail to learn what you need to know in order to use whatever qualities you may have. On the other hand, if you think you do not have what it takes, you may give up too easily, thinking it is useless to try. A poet is someone --- you, me, anyone --- who writes poems. That question out of the way, now we can learn to write poems better." (Chap. 1, "From Sighs and Groans to Art")

nice philosophy, and maybe applicable to other areas of life ... cf. IambicHonesty1 (http://zhurnaly.com/cgi-bin/wiki/IambicHonesty1) ... ^z

Re: What you are vs. what you do

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Good quote - thanks!

[jfs.livejournal.com]

My own personal definition of 'what is art?' includes deliberate creation; I don't think that art happens by accident. Instead, art occurs whenever a person creates something whilst trying to evoke an emotional reaction.

Whether they succeed or not is irrelevant; that's whether good or bad art is created. Merely trying makes it art.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

It's a good definition - I might end up co-opting that. (Although I wonder: is it necessary to specify "reaction" with "emotional"?)

[jfs.livejournal.com]

I think it is necessary - for me, art is about emotion.

I can (and often do) create things which are designed to evoke an intellectual reaction; that isn't art, in my opinion.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Fair enough!

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

I have been burned on anything other than a purely functional use of the term "artist". Those muse-dragged individuals you mentioned above are merely working under a different style of the inspiration to create; they are no more or less "artists" than anyone who puts pen to page (or whatever).

So my answer is, yes, you are.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

Hmm, all right. I'll be an artist, then.

(Incidentally, did you see the Judson Jerome quote zhurnaly posted above? Seems like a similar interpretation...)

[chanlemur.livejournal.com]

I did, yes. Put more eloquently than mine, I admit.

[packbat.livejournal.com]

True, but your specific point about inspiration was rather more informative to my own case. Also, "muse-dragged individuals" is a lovely construction.