Talk:Artist
From Academic Kids
"who employs creative talent": this is questionable. There are certainly artists without talent, or, it could certainly be argued by some people that there are. --Daniel C. Boyer and everyday artists with no talent but childy manners are taken on colomns for money exchange, concepts aren't art. creativity isn't enought but new expression reorienting way of finding mind or soul is.
It seems that you have an axe to grind here. although I agree with you that the page is a poor example when you consider the importance of artists in relation to both world and local culture. I have to disagree with your interpretation of both creativity and talent.
first 'talent' is an ability. Talent is not a competitive range, we all have it, all be it to a greater or lesser extent.
second the word creativity stems from the latin 'creare' to produce - It is more widely understood to mean some form of innovative production - again this is not exclusive we all can do it, or rather DO it in some aspect of our daily lives, even if it is simply in dressing, parenting, or making food.
So to recap - Creative Talent is essentially anyones 'abilty to create'
Clearly concepts are something that we all have the ability to create - this page is proof enough of that - 2 concepts both created.
As for wether that makes one an artist or not has been a matter of some debate. and with most debate the telling result is that it shows the perspective of those doing the debating. It seems that you assume that 'Artist' is a special term confered on those that 'deserve' it somehow. my stance is one that folows the line that Artist is simply a badge that can, when worn, give you permission to do what you might not ordinarily do. we should all be allowed to be artists even if only for our own pleasure.
Now of course when Art is treaded as a commodity then it follows that the artists must be of limited number, otherwise we'd all be doing it, and then how would the dealers and galleries make any money. the way they limit the number of artists is by making art seem difficult and obscure. It seems you want the best of both worlds - a distant artistic elite and a way of finding mind and soul. If you keep your artists as seperate dwellers in ivory towers they can be admired from afar, but wont help anyone understand mind and soul as much as if they too can partake of being an artist themselves.
As for the media coverage of ones that you dont feel deserving of it, chances are that somebody else does. If you dont like it dont read it, who will benefit from your resistance to it?
I would suggest that creativity is enough - the pressure for everyone to find a 'new expression' has led to the incoherent fragmentation of modernism and post modernism and in turn caused the very issue it seems that you are objecting to. when artists where simply trained colourmen and artisans the goals were clear "is this a better painting than the last". but then that is a painters view and Artist is a wider term. So go out there and BE an artist yourself, create better stuff (in whatever feild you know) with all of YOUR talent. you may not get national recognition, but your world will be a better place.
DavidP 19:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
major rewrite of artist page
The previous page was cursory - so I have rewritten the page and in doing so tried to keep any worthwhile content from the previous page - the two comments above relate to that previous page. the page was also listed in the PNA list - I have removed it from that list, as now I believe it only requires cleanup and of course some more input. DavidP 00:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Proposed rewrite
Artist is a subjective term which describes a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, their endeavors.
Most often, the term describes those who create in a cultural context, such as engaging in drawing, sculpting, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking and music — people who use imagination, and talent or skill, to create works of aesthetic value. , especially in the fine arts. Art historians and art critics define artists as those who produce art within a recognised provenance.
Many people use the term to denote highly skilled people in non-fine"arts" activities, as well — crafts, medicine, alchemy, mechanics, mathematics, defense (martial arts) and architecture, for example. The designation often applies to people skilled at nefarious or questionable activities, too — like "scam artist" or "bullshit artist."
Billions of books, articles, essays and theses are written, acedemic courses created, and café discussions held in an effort to define "art" and "artist", and yet, there is no consensus amongst humans about what constitues "art" or who is, or is not, an "artist".
Most often, the discussions focus on the differences between "artist" and "technician" or "artisan," "fine art" and "applied art," or what constitues art and what does not.
Western culture widely accepts that anyone can call themselves an "artist", however posterity ultimately decides whether the label fits.
The Oxford English dictionary, cites the broader meanings of the term "artist,"
- A learned person or Master of Arts.
- One who persues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry.
- A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice - the opposite of a theorist.
- a follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic.
- one who makes their craft a fine art.
- one who cultivates one of the fine arts - traditionally the arts presided over by the muses.
(referenced from: Template:Book reference)
In Greek the word "techně" means "art." In Latin, derived from the Greek word, "art" is "tecnicus", from which the English words technique, technology, technical are derived. So, though the words have evolved over millenia, their root is the same.
See also
* Lists of artists
* Wikipedia category: Artists
--sparkit (talk) 00:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Tonight's edits are marked with strikeout for what I took out and underline for what I changed or added.
--sparkit (talk) 03:44, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Some more tweaking. It occurs to me that the myth of the "starving artist" could be discussed in this piece. Comments?
--sparkit (talk) 18:12, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Sparkit. a good edit i think, I didnt have the time to give the page the attention it required and am glad that someone clearly has. having said that I would like to add a balancing para to your ending comment that refers to posterity - which I agree with but feel is only true from the perspective of an art historian. the balance i would suggest would aim to differentiate between the historians view that artists are the subject of study (when notable enough) and the process based perspective of the artist whose subject of study is the form and content of their work. the reason that I feel that this is important is that I find that artists are often spoken of as though they dont begin to exist until they are dead - which as i'm sure you will agree is an oxymoron. in reality this amounts to a situation similar to the classic "does he take sugar" syndrome. my interest here is permisive.
Surely the latin word ars is seperate from the greek techne which was indeed adopted by latin to mean 'craft' in direct contrast to art.
and finaly we must be careful to consider usage of terms such as 'plastic arts' 'fine arts' (which are both rather dated) 'visual arts' etc. they are often culturaly specific buzz words and tend to draw the subject away from its broader context (poetry, performance, and even martial) into specific areas (usually the visual arts) that are best linked to. (ever noticed the american preoccupation with all things turn of the century french - and the strange status implications of the term 'fine art' ?)
DavidP 03:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, David! I feel a bit bleary this evening, so I'll come back to this tommorrow. I think I understand what you mean about posterity deciding the importance or impact of an artist.
- The etomology of the word, though interesting, seems nearly irrelevant. However, I left it in, and perhaps misinterpreted what is written in the posted article.
- Thanks for pointing out the broader context. I've cut some of the references out.
- (I have noticed the American preoccupation with turn-of-the-century French culture, particularly in myself. ;) )
- Please, David and everyone, add to or change what I've drafted above.
