In your opinion, what is art and who can be considered an artist?

[epath13]

Here comes another "dead" thread but, anyway, I'm curious what you guys think.
I grew up in a family with a professional artist. I've been around art all my life. I have been tought that "real" artists know the theory and can draw anything if they want to. I was working on still-life, landscapes, portraits (not from photos) since I was little, later I switched to abstract, mostly because I felt I couldn't express myself strongly enough through realistic painting. I have learned theory over and over, I've drawn hundreds of works but I still feel like a fraud. And one of the reasons is because I always feel, I can do better... maybe because of anxiety, partially cause by my weird memory issues (I've mentioned it in a different post, don't want to repeat myself) and sensory issues (on good days I suddenly draw perfectly well, on bad days I feel like my hands are shaking or I have... sort of like... electric charge going through them, holding a pen etc. becomes too overwhelming) I feel like can't draw at all. But besides the point, I see so many amazing artists, they work is an example of perfection. And then I also see people who's work seem to be a little childish (and not on purpose). There's also the 3rd type, their works are not always perfect but there's incredible "soul" in their art, and people who have an eye for harmony or collectors may want to buy pieces made by them because it would be appreciated one day. I don't see that kind of art very frequently. It has incredible depth to it. I'm sure every artist want to be the 3rd type, some may want to be the 1st type, some may be satisfied with being the 2nd, but the 3rd will always matter the most in the end. I also believe that unfortunately an artist (in most cases) can't be his or her own judge.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say, that sometimes it's a little confusing to me. It seems now, with the growth of social media, anyone can call themselves an artist, so in the end the word itself almost looses it's meaning, because everybody is an artist now and there's nothing special about the word anymore. What do you think?

 

[King_Oni]

What I fail to see here is what kind of art you consider artt in general. To me it sounds more like you're addressing painting and graphic work in general, but art seems to be more than that. Sculpting, recording music (or video even) or even something like fashion design can still be art. Those can't be disregarded or just ignored. And that probably broadens the perspective to for example "can people consider this music?".

And you're right if you say that social media does make it possible for everyone to call themselves an artist. And perhaps I'm looking at it from a "musicians" (emphasis on the quotes here) perspective here; it also gave everyone to power to put their music (or what they regard as music) online and to the masses.

I was going to say that; what I think that counts is "if your work is being recognized as something by the masses it could qualify as art." However, the more I think about social media and people "liking" something just for the sake of liking it and often not even knowing what they're actually "supporting" it does fall flat on it's face. I mean, I could put up a facebook profile with something I consider art. If happen to have a lot of friends, they might just like it, because they're my friends... that's how social media seems to work now. Likes are a measuring stick nowadays, but the intentions are nowhere as relevant so it seems.

Letting go social media for a moment; there are plenty of contemporary artists as well as some in the past, of which people always said "how is this art?" yet they are being seen artists and recognized as such. A good example could be Marcel Duchamp or perhaps even Damien Hirst or Andres Serrano. Many people don't consider this art, yet it seems to be.

 

[Vanilla]

I remember answering a different question on this site, with a similar underlying theme: https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/difference-between-art-and-porn.7383/

Art mimics life; and life mimics art. It is a mirror, that both reflects, and affects, society, culture, ideas, opinions, politics, the human condition, whatever. Art can also question, or bring to surface issues, or point out that elephant in the room. Some art houses a simple idea, where as others are more complex; but the key difference between art, and craft, is that art has an idea behind it (an intended story to tell, by the artist), where as craft is simply pretty, or practical (like a hand-carved coffee table). It could be argued that art is a tangible form of an idea.

One of the best example for this, is by a very witty artist, called Marcel Duchump

Forgive me if the facts are a little sketchy here, but this is what I recall from my years of art in high school. He gained his fame in the art world, and began to realise a strange truth. He had become so accomplished, that whatever he would show case as art, would be highly commended by the art community. He had an epiphany. What made something art? Was it that society deemed something art, or because the artist claimed something they showcased, was in fact art?

To test his theory, Duchamp wanted to push the envelope, and see how his fans would respond. He purchased a urinal from a regular plumbing store, and the only alteration he had made to it, was his signature at the base. He placed the rather crude object in to an art exhibit (with some resistance from the exhibition directors). Once he had successfully entered his piece, it was a huge success! The arts community had accepted it, and this piece can now be found in many art books today.

What he had accomplished, was that he provided a piece, which still held an idea behind it; a rather blunt statement, which mocked the very system which brought him his fame. He tested this theory further with even more outrageous art pieces, but I'll leave that to anyone interested in looking him up further

View attachment 9531​

 

[epath13]

What I fail to see here is what kind of art you consider artt in general. To me it sounds more like you're addressing painting and graphic work in general, but art seems to be more than that. Sculpting, recording music (or video even) or even something like fashion design can still be art. Those can't be disregarded or just ignored. And that probably broadens the perspective to for example "can people consider this music?".

And you're right if you say that social media does make it possible for everyone to call themselves an artist. And perhaps I'm looking at it from a "musicians" (emphasis on the quotes here) perspective here; it also gave everyone to power to put their music (or what they regard as music) online and to the masses.

I was going to say that; what I think that counts is "if your work is being recognized as something by the masses it could qualify as art." However, the more I think about social media and people "liking" something just for the sake of liking it and often not even knowing what they're actually "supporting" it does fall flat on it's face. I mean, I could put up a facebook profile with something I consider art. If happen to have a lot of friends, they might just like it, because they're my friends... that's how social media seems to work now. Likes are a measuring stick nowadays, but the intentions are nowhere as relevant so it seems.

Letting go social media for a moment; there are plenty of contemporary artists as well as some in the past, of which people always said "how is this art?" yet they are being seen artists and recognized as such. A good example could be Marcel Duchamp or perhaps even Damien Hirst or Andres Serrano. Many people don't consider this art, yet it seems to be.

I agree, I did skip many forms of art and concentrated on fine art only. I guess it's because it has caused me the most pain I probably shouldn't have skipped it, but yeah... good point.

I think I has always been confused, but it seems that it is true. Whatever is recognized often perceived as art. I would add, especially if recognized by "experts", people who put themselves in those positions and attracted supporters. It's like, one person would say, "I'm the king", and them bunch of others would say, "ok, no problem, we'll do whatever you say" I guess maybe art (any form) is simply a creative way to express yourself, nothing more than that. It seems to me I have hard time shaking off the opinions of my teachers. And another thing, I may be calling myself an artist simply because I've been recognized as one by a few galleries here and there, not because it's the way I feel. I have really hard time recognizing myself as musician, for instance, because I don't recall being truly recognized by any "experts" plus I feel that being talented means nothing in comparison with having skill.
I think the reason I like posting this kind of questions and receiving challenging answers is because it makes me think, helps me to establish certain position, or form a certain opinion that I can become truly connected to.

And as for, whatever survives the ages may be called art... (or good art?) that's also brings up a lot of questions. I'm following one blog, the owner posts lots of pieces from different times, and some of those old works seem really immature (technique wise) but it's still appreciated as something amazing... but then we'll look at works of, let's say, Van Gogh and so many others just seem to disappear in his shadow, because he's got something very special, something invisible that nobody else has (again, fine art, I know ). I'm not saying all his works "feel" the same but many definitely do. But then again, maybe the only reason why I feel it is because his art "speaks" to me, I can, in a way, "relate" to it...

As for the guys you've mentioned, they've got something. But what is it? It's almost like they are able to express one single thing (whatever that is) very clearly, there's no fog, no extra thoughts or feelings, it's one... sort of... stream of expression. I would say the same about writers. Some writes have an incredible ability to just say it, without wandering around, its almoust like they are able to express clarity itself...

 

[epath13]

I have really hard time expressing what I want to say, but after reading Vanilla ' s comment I could say one more thing. It's almost like, it's about some code that's is present in a person and reflected in his/her art. It's about a creator as much it is about the art. A weird comparison maybe, there plenty of trees out there, we may look at them and not pay much attention to them, we may find some of them ptettier than otherws, but then we'll see one that will capture our attention, one that we will remember. Our mind puts everything in perspective, we don't just look at things we create a... sort of... setting for objects... frame them, we pick one that within the setting is the most meaninful.. I don't know, maybe I'm saying something obvious. .. I never seem to know

 

[Vanilla]

I have really hard time expressing what I want to say, but after reading Vanilla ' s comment I could say one more thing. It's almost like, it's about some code that's is present in a person and reflected in his/her art. It's about a creator as much it is about the art. A weird comparison maybe, there plenty of trees out there, we may look at them and not pay much attention to them, we may find some of them ptettier than otherws, but then we'll see one that will capture our attention, one that we will remember. Our mind puts everything in perspective, we don't just look at things we create a... sort of... setting for objects... frame them, we pick one that within the setting is the most meaninful.. I don't know, maybe I'm saying something obvious. .. I never seem to know

Yes, art has a lot of psychological factors behind it. One of the reasons why individuals are able to produce pieces of art, which are generally unique to the person, is because everyone sees the world differently. How we see the world is influenced by our past, our environment, our beliefs, our emotions, etc.

One good example of this is by seeing how one object can be drawn differently by different individuals. There's an interesting psychological test, similar to ink blot tests. I don't believe this test is used much anymore, but it is good for interest's sake. I found that when I was to draw from my imagination, as opposed to from a reference, this test was extremely accurate.

House, Tree, Person Test (HTP):
House Tree Person Drawings  The

 

[epath13]

I think, I did the test long time ago, I tried to do it again, but I felt it would take too much time to draw the best I could I would say, I'm full of "smoke" and disconnected from reality... whatever the reality is... I remember person who interpreted my drawings long time ago talked about lack of roots as being an issue, my argument was, "do you see a lot of trees in nature with roots hanging around? They are under ground! What don't you get?" I think if I took the test seriously I would end up being incapable expressing everything I want to express... I could try though... my way

 

[King_Oni]

House, Tree, Person Test (HTP):
House Tree Person Drawings  The

I remember a similar test I did as a child, where I had to draw things and tell a therapist about it. I can't really recall if this was in fact the HTP test though.

I do remember that I went.. and probably still will, go full on aspie on it. Even as a child I reduced every drawing made to nothing more than a drawing with no backstory or imagination. Basically it came down to "this person cannot have anything going on, it's not even a person since it's made up from ink... on a piece of paper. It's about as lifeless as they come".

That might've been a good pointer that there's a lack of imagination going on with me and I tend to be quite rational... and perhaps too rational and logical.

 

[Vanilla]

I think, I did the test long time ago, I tried to do it again, but I felt it would take too much time to draw the best I could I would say, I'm full of "smoke" and disconnected from reality... whatever the reality is... I remember person who interpreted my drawings long time ago talked about lack of roots as being an issue, my argument was, "do you see a lot of trees in nature with roots hanging around? They are under ground! What don't you get?" I think if I took the test seriously I would end up being incapable expressing everything I want to express... I could try though... my way

Haha, I was the complete opposite. I would always obsess over the roots on my trees. Sometimes the roots would be wrapped around large rocks, or poking out from the ground (as some trees do). My trees are less intense these days, but I've changed a lot as a person, so it seems to have reflected in my drawings as well.

I remember a similar test I did as a child, where I had to draw things and tell a therapist about it. I can't really recall if this was in fact the HTP test though.

I do remember that I went.. and probably still will, go full on aspie on it. Even as a child I reduced every drawing made to nothing more than a drawing with no backstory or imagination. Basically it came down to "this person cannot have anything going on, it's not even a person since it's made up from ink... on a piece of paper. It's about as lifeless as they come".

That might've been a good pointer that there's a lack of imagination going on with me and I tend to be quite rational... and perhaps too rational and logical.

To each their own. A friend of mine is the same. He has a very mathematical mind, and we get along well as he sees things in a very logical manner, but he hates creativity, as he feels more at home with certainty. We're quite the opposite here, as I can't comprehend mathematics, but somehow we get along.

 

[Nitro]

Art to me is an expression of feelings and has no strict set of rules. I often comment on how each of us defines colors,but unless you can see thru my eyes,we might perceive those colors differently. Artistic works can take on many forms that are not only images that are created,but use of a camera can be considered art as well. Music or dancing are other forms of expression that may or not agree with how it inspires you personally. Juvenile drawings or paintings are often overlooked because it may not appeal to your own tastes,but they may inspire the artist who created them. I grew up in an artistic family of images and music and often remarked that I did not totally enjoy my grandfather's impressionistic works...he was very talented,but my works are often detailed drawings that are very precise and photographic looking. I dabble in photo-realistic computer generated works from time to time and was told by an oil painter that his works were art,but mine weren't because he had to mix his colors to produce his work...color mixing applies to comp gen works as well and distasteful colors can be produced in any medium used,electronic or in paints or drawing media. Another form of my art is customizing vehicles to improve the looks or functionality of them...my wood work is yet another art form that requires an eye to make things appealing...true art is what works for you and not necessarily what pleases others. I love to say I am in touch with my feminine side when decorating my home with very feminine displays and tastes amidst the automotive and aviation themed displays

 

[epath13]

Art to me is an expression of feelings and has no strict set of rules. I often comment on how each of us defines colors,but unless you can see thru my eyes,we might perceive those colors differently. Artistic works can take on many forms that are not only images that are created,but use of a camera can be considered art as well. Music or dancing are other forms of expression that may or not agree with how it inspires you personally. Juvenile drawings or paintings are often overlooked because it may not appeal to your own tastes,but they may inspire the artist who created them. I grew up in an artistic family of images and music and often remarked that I did not totally enjoy my grandfather's impressionistic works...he was very talented,but my works are often detailed drawings that are very precise and photographic looking. I dabble in photo-realistic computer generated works from time to time and was told by an oil painter that his works were art,but mine weren't because he had to mix his colors to produce his work...color mixing applies to comp gen works as well and distasteful colors can be produced in any medium used,electronic or in paints or drawing media. Another form of my art is customizing vehicles to improve the looks or functionality of them...my wood work is yet another art form that requires an eye to make things appealing...true art is what works for you and not necessarily what pleases others. I love to say I am in touch with my feminine side when decorating my home with very feminine displays and tastes amidst the automotive and aviation themed displays

Are you on Tumblr? Where can I see your work? I'm curious

 

[Nitro]

Are you on Tumblr? Where can I see your work? I'm curious

there is a small amount of it here at AC in my art and Aspieville galleries and pics I took littered all over my other galleries....most of my comp gen stuff is never posted in public,but can be identified by a Custom Imagery by Nitro with a date if it was one of my works that got stolen from me on social media...now I am going to date myself here a bit...I love my Photoshop and at one time ran a tag site for Yahoo Chat profiles before Myspace and Facebook came along...after server costs started to chew up lots of money,I gave all my silly little stuff to a girl running a tagsite in Washington DC USA who I shared linkouts with and made custom tags for...glitter was in at the time, the herpes of the art world and she always asked for glitter zodiac crapola from me...I taught myself basic HTML to exploit Yahoo Chat and make it what the big social media sites offer now using an exploit for Youtube and a little trick to set the vids to autoplay when they were linked out. I would specify that the video was to display in a 1x1 pixel format and add the &autoplay=true string to a music video to make music play automatically when my profile was opened in the advanced Yahoo chat profiles without the video displaying...there were crappy music players available for money,but the music had to be clicked on by the user to hear it...another thing I did on Yahoo chat was to run a video jukebox format for a profile that had artwork either made by me or gathered from the internet that tied in to the video theme...it was updated daily

I must sound like I am insane...well,maybe just a little

 

[gonzerd]

... I have been thought that "real" artists know the theory and can draw anything if they want to.

Knowing the theory and being able to draw/make/write anything doesn't necessarily have much to do with artistry; it's craftsmanship. They are two very different entities, often intertwined, but existing separate from each other.

It helps to know about the medium you're working with, to know about theory, but it's not a fail safe route, nor is it a requirement in my opinion. But I tend to like things that aren't too thought out. No, that's not right. I tend to not like things that are too much based on some learned theory on how something is supposed to be. It is a bit of a personal fault of mine probably. A friend and I are trying to write some comedy stuff (it's a slow process) and whenever he gets into the theory of storytelling stuff, I cringe. I know it's a good thing to have in the toolbox, but still, something about starting from some theoretic viewpoint comes of as highly untrue to me. I like things to come naturally, to feel naturally, to come into existence out of some kind of creative flow; a product of the soul rather than a product of the brain. **** the golden ratio. My soul doesn't care too much about numbers. It's emotion that counts.

I do feel a little dirty writing or speaking about art. There used to be a time when I saw the term as nothing but a brand name, maybe the world's most expensive brand name at that. I guess what I mean is that art is highly subjective. You get it or you don't, or you feel in it your bones or you don't. And if you don't, that's no problem. It doesn't mean the art is not good art, or the onlooker has to develop 'better' taste. It just is what it is.

I'm being called an artist these days, which is nice. It did feel like a bit of a breakthrough when it first happened, even though it does feel weird. Mostly because it's in essence an authoritative argument, which I highly dislike. But it's a good excuse to keep doing what I'm doing.

There's a piece of lyrics I can't help but think about. From "Trouble With Classicists" by John Cale and Lou Reed, but speaking in name of Andy Warhol:

I like the druggy downtown kids who spray paint walls and trains.
I like their lack of training, their primitive technique.
I think sometimes it hurts you if you stay too long in school.
I think sometimes it hurts you when you're afraid to be called a fool.

 

[epath13]

Nitro

Couldn't find your works here... maybe I was looking in a wrong place...

 

[Nitro]

try this link Albums for user: Nitro | AspiesCentral.com

 

[epath13]

Knowing the theory and being able to draw/make/write anything doesn't necessarily have much to do with artistry; it's craftsmanship. They are two very different entities, often intertwined, but existing separate from each other.

It helps to know about the medium you're working with, to know about theory, but it's not a fail safe route, nor is it a requirement in my opinion. But I tend to like things that aren't too thought out. No, that's not right. I tend to not like things that are too much based on some learned theory on how something is supposed to be. It is a bit of a personal fault of mine probably. A friend and I are trying to write some comedy stuff (it's a slow process) and whenever he gets into the theory of storytelling stuff, I cringe. I know it's a good thing to have in the toolbox, but still, something about starting from some theoretic viewpoint comes of as highly untrue to me. I like things to come naturally, to feel naturally, to come into existence out of some kind of creative flow; a product of the soul rather than a product of the brain. **** the golden ratio. My soul doesn't care too much about numbers. It's emotion that counts.

I think sometimes knowing the theory... well, let's be more specific - rules of composition.... and maybe, you shouldn't really call them "rules" but ... I don't know... after all, it's just a theory... "rule" sounds too solid, as if there's no place for doubt... but... they are based on knowledge of human perception... right? so knowing them can help to deliver just the right message through your art... whatever the message is, whether it is an idea, or emotion. There're people out there who may be able to deliver their messages very clearly without any help. To me it's like this, if you want to explain something to people, or make sure that they can "hear" you, you have to be able to speak their language. Sometimes you start speaking your own language instead of theirs and then message gets lost... I know I do it a lot

I don't think you should follow those rules blindly but use them as reference. I wish I could send those clear messages through my works to the people that need them. Even if I don't really understand what the messages are. I want to filter everything that is not related to them out.
Maybe sometimes a feeling or an idea become so intense and overwhelming - everything else gets filtered out automatically. At that moment you know - you don't need any help, it just happens.

 

[epath13]

try this link Albums for user: Nitro | AspiesCentral.com

I got a little lost...
is this yours btw? Portfolio

I would say out of all the photos I like these the most I was not sure if you were involved in making any of those (photos, designs, objects), but I was drawn to those the most
quarter view | AspiesCentral.com
Service Technician | AspiesCentral.com
My on my first car age 14 | AspiesCentral.com

I like the design on this one
lead sled | AspiesCentral.com

 

[icesyckel]

Here comes another "dead" thread but, anyway, I'm curious what you guys think. I grew up in a family with a professional artist. I've been around art all my life. I have been tought that "real" artists know the theory and can draw anything if they want to. I was working on still-life, landscapes, portraits (not from photos) since I was little, later I switched to abstract, mostly because I felt I couldn't express myself strongly enough through realistic painting. I have learned theory over and over, I've drawn hundreds of works but I still feel like a fraud. And one of the reasons is because I always feel, I can do better...

I also believe that unfortunately an artist (in most cases) can't be his or her own judge... Anyway, what I'm trying to say, that sometimes it's a little confusing to me...

This is even more difficult to discuss than religion, in a way. Most religions have a "sacred text" or texts (e.g., Bible, Quran, etc.) that establishes certain precepts that provide boundaries to discuss subjects that are difficult to discuss or quantify. Art, by contrast, has no defining text or boundaries. You cannot quantify it, and every course I ever took in art discussed various "movements," which is an apt term b/c as soon as I think I understand something about "art," tit moves away, and I am out of date.

I think art is, at least in part, a popularity contest. Most agree that an artist cannot be his own judge unless the artist makes his/her art only for himself. Art is usually for exhibition - so that others can appreciate it. How well it shows and sells depends on how many people like it. Translated: "is it popular?" If yes, even if only with a certain group/demographic, then most people will agree it is art. Again, if you make art only for you, then yours is the only opinion that matters. Otherwise, you simply have to show it and see whether it is art and, if so, whether it is good art.

Sometimes its market value (dollars and cents) is a reflection of your work's popularity, though this is not always the case. If your art appeals to a less wealthy demographic, then its success/popularity cannot be calculated in terms of dollars and cents. However, people will generally voice their honest opinion about art when the artist isn't there whether they buy it or not.

As to the word "fraud" - this only applies if you attempt to sell or convey art as something other than what it is. If you tell people a painting is by Rembrandt, and if it isn't, then you are a fraud. If you paint something and then tell people it is yours, then you aren't a fraud. Quite the opposite. You are taking an honest risk of rejection. Now, if people don't like it, then you maybe aren't a very good artist in the minds of those people. keep displaying it, though, and soon maybe you are an amazing artist in someone else's eyes.

Art is one of the few truly subjective areas. It is all "in the eye of the beholder."

Lastly, every artist should always feels that s/he can "do better." What would the point be of continuing if you've already churned out perfection? I doubt many successful artists ever felt their work was "perfect."

 

[epath13]

As to the word "fraud" - this only applies if you attempt to sell or convey art as something other than what it is. <...>

Lastly, every artist should always feels that s/he can "do better." What would the point be of continuing if you've already churned out perfection? I doubt many successful artists ever felt their work was "perfect."

I like this. I keep telling something similar to myself from time to time but then, after some negative remark, let myself drown in personal insecurities.

 

[icesyckel]

I like this. I keep telling something similar to myself from time to time but then, after some negative remark, let myself drown in personal insecurities.

I find myself regularly second-guessing myself when it comes to how others perceive me. I think it comes from being on the spectrum - I don't trust people to tell me things straight, and I have difficulty with certain visual cues that they expect me to pick up on. People try to spare my feelings, but in doing so they sometimes spare me the truth about something critical, as I lack the ability to pick up the non-verbal hints they think they are broadcasting. Sometimes the negative remarks are a godsend, but that blunt honesty is so rare that we often read way too much into it. Most people are as reserved with praise as with criticism. In fact, I find that the people who are the most open/blunt with their thoughts/opinions are the ones who tend to be overly negative.

Ergo, you can't go just on things people say or don't say to you. You have to put your work out there and watch from the background like a fly on the wall as people comment on it to others. Only then will you get an honest review.

I don't really know how to stay motivated. On the rare occasions I make something artistic, negative remarks are crushing to me too. I guess the only thing I can tell you is that, like with people in the dating threads, rejection is always a risk when you step out into the world. If you're happy with who you are and your work, then you will have a certain stability that will let you weather the storm of rejection when it comes. If you keep at it, then you are bound to find someone who appreciates your work.

Bottom line, so long as you avoid plagiarism/taking credit for the work of others, at worst you risk being a "bad" artist, but never a fraud. Conversely, you also stand a chance of being received as a "great" artist. Only one way to know - put it out there.

Ultimately, if you aren't able to be a successful artist, then maybe your talents lie elsewhere? I believe we all have something to offer that we do well. Find it, and do that.