PDA

View Full Version : What it means to be an "artist"


Max Romaine
06-18-2015, 04:32 PM
I got into a debate with artist Steven Russell Black on Facebook today concerning the term/title "artist". Steven is of the opinion that creating art is not enough to deserve being called an artist. He thinks a person cannot be called an artist or painter unless they produce good art/paintings. I expressed my opinion that anyone who chooses to paint is a painter regardless of skill; that whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion but it is art nonetheless and that art is about self-expression, not proving to the masses how "good" you are. I believe good and bad are relative terms that open to interpretation. He disagreed.

So in the name of fairness, I invited him to openly post his opinion on the subject in a fresh post (we had been discussing it under a reply thread which only people who actually read that far would see) and invite his FB followers, of which he has a considerable number, to debate the issue.

His response was to refuse, tell me that he thinks I'm insane and that he doesn't owe me anything, whereupon I called him a coward for being unwilling to share his elitist attitude openly. That was the end of it. He then banned me completely from his FB page.

Since Steven is unwilling to discuss this openly on FB, I thought I'd invite people on DW to post their opinions because I'd really like to know what people think about this. Is Steven right? Am I really "insane" for thinking this way?

Stewart Vernon
06-18-2015, 04:57 PM
If you are quoting him accurately, then his core statement is actually meaningless. To say "it isn't art unless it is good" is beyond vague. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, etc. etc. Good cannot be quantified in any meaningful way since it is opinion.

More than that... if one person says it is good, isn't that enough? But why does even one person have to say it is good?

To my mind... art is an expression of something. That "something" can be anything, and the art itself can be anything. Music, painting, dance, invention, almost anything you can think of to do in order to express an idea or feeling or story is art.

There is a LOT of art that doesn't appeal to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't art. I can only say whether I like something or not. It becomes art as soon as it is created.

What becomes debatable is... whether someone is a "professional" or not. That's more tricky. A professional usually is someone who gets paid... but sometimes the big payoff is posthumously... there are also various professions where you work without pay either voluntarily OR because the company pulls the rug from under you. That doesn't negate being a professional either.

So, I digress... but the point was, professional vs non-professional seems like more of a valid argument than artist vs non-artist.

Steven Forbes
06-18-2015, 07:20 PM
Wait.

You had a disagreement, he calls you insane and you call him a coward, so he bans you?

I think people know when they take an indefensible stance. That is backed up by their actions.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Schuyler
06-18-2015, 07:59 PM
Wow.

I work at a lot of galleries and museums. I am just the AV tech and there is a lot of stuff that I don't like. I am also ignorant, so I don't ever make statements like the one that Steven Russell Black made.

My intellectual inability to grasp certain art is not a failure of the artist, in my opinion. As Stewart mentioned, the eye of the beholder and all that.

All that being said...

What if one of your peers was not getting better and kept calling themselves a comic book writer or artist/colorist/letterer/editor etc?

It makes people mad. So mad they may say things they cannot defend.

I am not trying to justify the way Steven acted, only trying to understand why he chose to say those things.

-Sky

B-McKinley
06-18-2015, 10:18 PM
People used to tell me I was a good drawer.

... which is better than being a junk drawer *rimshot*.

A true artist ;) would never shy away from arguing about what art is. Based on what I remember about art history the "artists" are the current avante garde generation and everyone else is "not a true artist." This is the the way it has been for many, many generations.

Scribbly
06-19-2015, 12:07 AM
What it means to be an "artist" . Good question.

SamRoads
06-19-2015, 06:19 AM
If you've reported his argument accurately, he's indulging in some linguistic gymnatics. If he says that artists cannot be bad, he's defining a special noun which cannot have adjectives applied to it.

Morganza
06-19-2015, 08:00 AM
I feel like we're not getting the whole argument, it does not make sense, anybody can be an artist.

juan.a.stewart
06-19-2015, 11:03 AM
OK I'll shoot myself... If you create art and this is your thing, then you're an artist. You create art... you eat it, you breathe it, you drink it, it's your fuel, it's what you do and especially if it's what other's know you for... then you're an artist.

No matter your level good or bad, you're an artist. Now what I think Steven Russell Black is getting at is what I believe is "The Master Draftsman", the renaissance, the, the, the... yeah, the one who's at a better level is only worthy of being called an artist. Most of the master draftsman from the past that are praised for their work today weren't considered "true artists", no they weren't.

Everyone here who has posted art here in DW is an artist, no matter what it is, and me mentioning that is a perfect example of an artist being an artist, again, if you create art and it's your thing then, yeah, get my point.

I feel all that other stuff that you got called for being insane is extreme any art teacher will say that Steven is being extreme with this.

DaveyDouble
06-20-2015, 04:49 AM
1/ Hi to Schuyler. Fellow AV tech here! Also in a gallery. I generally think that the artists I come into contact with are actually just dickheads who are intellectualising the process of disappearing up their own arse.

2/ art, Art, creating Art, creating art, being an Artist and being an artist, is an utterly redundant conversation. Who gives a fuck?
I've had similar conversations with resident artists at the gallery and what it boils down to is attempting to either find validation, or in its absence self-validate.
Now, I'm interested in critical feedback from my peers. Technical feedback that highlights ways to communicate better. Better framing, colour choices, rendering techniques, plotting, pace, lettering. Anything that helps develop, and I will dish it out as well if asked. But I have zero interest in whether the sculptor thinks comics are legitimate forms of art. Or Art.
I have no interest in whether the film maker recognises that film and comics are essentially the same thing. I couldn't care less whether the musician considers their ambisonic abstract composition to have more cultural value than the heavy metal demo I wrote.

I have a job that pays my bills and when I get the time, or make the time, I create artwork. Thats all there is to it. If some prick wants to bar the gate and say that only certain people get to call themselves Artists, that's up to them, but its not going to stop me creating the artwork I want to see.
There's no point either in calling an Artist out as elitist because they don't agree with you.
Everyone is a snob about something.

Scribbly
06-20-2015, 05:46 AM
I feel like we're not getting the whole argument, it does not make sense, anybody can be an artist.

Totally agree.
Even at early age, an without any technical skill some children are already artists.
To make a living from art is a different issue. IMHO.

Max Romaine
06-20-2015, 12:33 PM
I assure you, I'm giving you guys a blow by blow of exactly how the conversation went. Steven, very clearly and with no confusion, stated his opinion that painting doesn't make one a painter and that you only earn the title of painter once you have reached a certain level of skill. Now what level of skill he means and who exactly gets to decide where this imaginary bar is set he chose not to elaborate upon. Presumably he's referring to his own standard of what constitutes "good art", but as he didn't really explain this part, I'm not sure.

It really pains me to have this happen because, up until now, I really liked S.R.B. and his work. I still think he's a fantastic artist. I have many of his images saved in a folder where I keep the best images I've been able to find online for later study. We used to discuss the details of art and art tools and such at length. He seemed like a reasonable intelligent person. It's actually a bit depressing.

But I cannot and will not subscribe to any philosophy that dictates to others whether they qualify as a true artist or not based on a perceived skill level nor will I associate with anyone who adopts such beliefs and I'm frankly astonished that a respected artist like Black feels this way at all. I can just imagine Steven looking at the work of some little kid and saying, "Nice effort, but you're not an artist yet because you're not good enough." I have a thirteen-year-old daughter who draws and if anyone ever said this to her I'd slap the shit outta them.

I would post the exact conversation but Steven, in his cowardice, banned me from his page and I can't view it anymore. But I wanted to make it clear that I'm not flying off the handle here. He stated his thoughts on the matter quite clearly with no ambiguity. Even some of his fans were agreeing it was kind of a shitty elitist perspective to adopt.

I'm glad to see so many people posting on this. So far, everyone I've told about this agrees Black is forgetting what's really important in art: Passion, heart, soul, pouring yourself into your work, speaking from within, creating an emotional response. To me, that's all that really matters.

Morganza
06-20-2015, 01:54 PM
You did not use the same words. A painter is someone who paints, any artist can paint, doesn't make them a "Painter". It's a specific skill set, you misrepresented your whole argument. It takes a certain amount of training and skill to be a painter, or a plumber.

Being an artist is a broad spectrum of esthetics that are vague and subjective.

Max Romaine
06-20-2015, 10:04 PM
Morganza, what difference does it make? My argument is not misrepresented. If you paint, you're a painter. If you dance, you're a dancer. If you drive, you're a driver. If you walk, you're a walker. If you jump, you're a jumper. If you grab a tool and try to fix plumbing, you're a plumber. You may be a bad plumber, but you're a plumber. The level of skill is irrelevant. That is my point.

And if you create something you feel is art, you're an artist. Whether anyone else likes it or not doesn't matter. I don't see how I misrepresented that. Sounds pretty basic to me.

Morganza
06-20-2015, 10:48 PM
Morganza, what difference does it make? My argument is not misrepresented. If you paint, you're a painter. If you dance, you're a dancer. If you drive, you're a driver. If you walk, you're a walker. If you jump, you're a jumper. If you grab a tool and try to fix plumbing, you're a plumber. You may be a bad plumber, but you're a plumber. The level of skill is irrelevant. That is my point.

And if you create something you feel is art, you're an artist. Whether anyone else likes it or not doesn't matter. I don't see how I misrepresented that. Sounds pretty basic to me.

So your argument is you can call yourself anything and you don't need the skill to back it up because skill level is irrelevant.

I just don't agree with you.

Skill is required for all of those things you listed, I wouldn't pay a plumber that just picked up a tool and called himself a plumber, he needs to know what the fuck he is doing and how to do it right.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 01:08 AM
[QUOTE=Max Romaine;1847445]I assure you, I'm giving you guys a blow by blow of exactly how the conversation went. Steven, very clearly and with no confusion, stated his opinion that painting doesn't make one a painter and that you only earn the title of painter once you have reached a certain level of skill. Now what level of skill he means and who exactly gets to decide where this imaginary bar is set he chose not to elaborate upon. Presumably he's referring to his own standard of what constitutes "good art", but as he didn't really explain this part, I'm not sure.
Of course, he is totally talking from his own standards. What do you expect?
These high standards are what make him to produce the high quality artwork that you so much admire. That certain level of skill he is mentioning are the basic skills that you need for succeed in any medium or activity.


It really pains me to have this happen because, up until now, I really liked S.R.B. and his work. I still think he's a fantastic artist. I have many of his images saved in a folder where I keep the best images I've been able to find online for later study. We used to discuss the details of art and art tools and such at length. He seemed like a reasonable intelligent person. It's actually a bit depressing.Why depressing? Because he did set the bar high for himself? Maybe you should try to imitate him on that.
This is like the conversation between the bodybuilder training himself for Mister Olympia and the dude who goes to the gym to budding around.
Them both are in the gym, yet they have different standards about what workout is, or what to be a bodybuilder means.
But I cannot and will not subscribe to any philosophy that dictates to others whether they qualify as a true artist or not based on a perceived skill level nor will I associate with anyone who adopts such beliefs and I'm frankly astonished that a respected artist like Black feels this way at all. I can just imagine Steven looking at the work of some little kid and saying, "Nice effort, but you're not an artist yet because you're not good enough." I have a thirteen-year-old daughter who draws and if anyone ever said this to her I'd slap the shit outta them.
I think that here we should add the word "commercial" to make some sense of this concept;
It should be, , "Nice effort, but you're not a COMMERCIAL artist yet because you're not good enough."

Any one can be an artist. This is a natural instinct and kind of perception that allows the individual to project or produce esthetical images, forms or sounds as way of expression. When that expression is perceived by outsiders it becomes Art.
Commercial art, unlike Fine Arts, need to develop that set of skills at some level, in order of being paid and accepted and requested by massive audiences.

I would post the exact conversation but Steven, in his cowardice, banned me from his page and I can't view it anymore. But I wanted to make it clear that I'm not flying off the handle here. He stated his thoughts on the matter quite clearly with no ambiguity. Even some of his fans were agreeing it was kind of a shitty elitist perspective to adopt.
I don't think that was cowardice from him. I think that at some point, he got tired of your non understanding over simple and obvious matters.

I'm glad to see so many people posting on this. So far, everyone I've told about this agrees Black is forgetting what's really important in art: Passion, heart, soul, pouring yourself into your work, speaking from within, creating an emotional response. To me, that's all that really matters.
Exactly, that is what really matters as motivation. But if you want achieve the mister Olympia as this guy does , you should kill yourself working out and improve your skills every day to achieve the high levels he's pursuing. Or you are out of competition.

DaveyDouble
06-21-2015, 02:25 AM
No. Now you guys are talking about getting paid for it. That's a job.

That's not the same argument, and having read the comment thread on FB, is not where this argument was going either.

The difference between doing something because you can, such as creating artwork, and getting other people to pay you to create artwork for them is nothing to do with skill and everything to do with a combination of attitude, history, reputation and an invoice.
Both of those people are artists. The one who gets paid to be an artist is not more of an artist. The one who doesn't get paid is not less of an artist.
But, as with plumbers, when you need advice, you're going to take it from the one who gets other people to pay them to do it all day.
But you're also going to remember that it's not in their interests to give you good advice, because that's how they pay their bills, if they tell you how to do it, you won't have to pay them to do it for you.

This argument with SRB is the same dog washed. He wants to defend his income, which is an understandable position, but what makes him a prick is that he is dressing up his argument as some kind of truth about being an Artist. It's not. SRBs argument is a combination of bard sell advertising and bitterness. Bitterness that other people, who he doesn't regard as possessing the requisite skills (as he does), are getting paid to create artwork for others, because seriously, its just too depressing to think that a professional paid artist ants to tell hobbyists and children that their creations are bullshit.

I don't like it that everyone and their dog gets called a technician these days, especially in the audio visual scene. But all I can tell people is that my technical skills are backed up by 20 years of other people asking me to do AV for them. I don't worry about the rest.

Stewart Vernon
06-21-2015, 02:45 AM
There is definitely some mixing of apples and oranges going on in here.

IF you can't fix ANY kind of plumbing problem... then you can't call yourself a plumber. But, even if you can only fix one specific and limited kind of plumbing problem... you ARE a plumber. You might not be a professional or get paid at all... and you might not be good... but you're technically a plumber if you can at least do one kind of plumbing thing.

Being professional doesn't guarantee you are any good OR that you get paid what you are worth.

Mike Judge has made a lot more money than Leonardo DaVinci... but I wouldn't argue Judge is a better artist. I'd argue they are both different kinds of artists.

If you can create something, and express something, you're an artist. Even if nobody likes what you do... even if you don't like what you do... you're an artist if you create something.

Arguing over who is good or bad is subjective, not objective... and trying to apply "levels" or "skills" to someone according to how many people like them or how much they get paid is a meaningless endeavor.

To paraphrase a famous thought...

I create, therefore I am... an artist! :)

Grimspeare
06-21-2015, 05:47 AM
Very interesting post. I love all the responses so far.

I’d actually been thinking about this topic quite a bit lately. I’ve gotten to the point in my craft where I’m not as hindered by my lack of knowledge of anatomy and perspective, and I'm finally able to focus on composition and how that influences the emotional response in the reader. Then these thoughts drifted more abstractly to art in general, and what makes an artist, and etc etc etc.

What I’ve come down to is that trying to define what an artist is or what an artist does, is not so much a problem with the concept of an artist in and of itself, but actually a problem with the act of definition. I mean, if you start picking around at any word, you’re gonna realize that there are pretty much no words with razor sharp edges (definition-wise). And now we’re tackling something as ill-defined as art … which, just like pornography, is famously hard to define, but when I see it, I definitely see it. The trouble is, you’d be hard pressed to fine two people whose opinions on all matters in art overlap a 100%.

So where does that leave us? Well, we have a concept (the artist), which can be applied to so many different types of people, at different skill levels, making vastly different types of art (painting, film, dancing, cabinet building, etc etc), in different cultures, with different presuppositions, that the concept of the artist is basically meaningless. But still, I know an artist when I see one, so there must be something that defines them all … right? If we could just figure it out. Well, for some people it’s reaching a particular skill level, for others it’s getting paid, or being recognized, or this or that … maybe for some they never feel like an artist at all. Well, the simple/natural thing to do, is state whatever makes _you_ feel like an artist, define it so, and then tell/make everyone else fall in line with you. This works. Go to an art gallery. You’ll find art there. Go to a symphony. You’ll find it there too. But some people can see art in a mural painted under highway. Some can see it in their children’s doodles. Are they wrong? And if not, if we are (un)wise enough to believe their experience, then what is that common factor that makes both a child’s doodle and, say, the Mona Lisa both art? Well (and here I’m forcing my opinion on all of you), it’s whether it moves you emotionally, whatever that means. This applies to someone who has no formal training or experience with art, up to a grandmaster of their craft. Ok, this sidestepped the original issue slightly. If all of that makes art, what makes an artist? I’d say, someone who produces work that moves people emotionally: from a child’s doodle all the way to Van Gogh. If you’re well trained, most likely you’ll be moved by art that is well crafted and you'll move more people. If you have no experience with art at all, you might be less finicky and less people will be moved by your work. Even that’s not a hard and fast rule. And there’s much to be said about being well trained and practiced. It opens up more doors of appreciation, definitely. (Just like the bodybuilder mentioned earlier.) It does allow you to appreciate the technical aspects of the work, but you have to been careful not to let it take the joy out of you. This happens all too often. Ever listen to good old rock ‘n’ roll with a music student? They can be quite a buzzkill.

G

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 10:36 AM
Commercial Art is meant to be paid. Is meant to be a job. And a profession. It has a set of skills that must be achieved in order to please the audience and potential employers at the first impact. In this area, good or bad is totally objective, not subjective.
Commonly, the artist will be recreating or representing others people ideas or expression: advertisement, illustration, comics, animation and all their derivations as merchandising are working under these concept. Anyone working in these areas is an artist.

Fine Arts, may or not be paid. Is meant to be a personal expression. It can be commercialized.The set of skills could be mastered or not. Or could be mastered in order to be distorted or reinterpreted. In this area good or bad is subjective, not objective. Where the artist, disregarding the initial audience response would express himself and his message in a esthetical way.
Anyone working in these areas is an artist.

A child playing with crayons or an amateur doodling own stuff or copying or imitating an artistic product with no further notion of the rules or skills used to create it are also artists.
The only difference is what any of these artists have for final goal. And what are they doing about it.

Max Romaine
06-21-2015, 01:08 PM
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some are bound to disagree with me. I am of the opinion that one is what one does and the level of skill is irrelevant. I understand that some people think you need to be capable of doing something well to be called a practitioner of that craft, but I choose to respect the wishes of my fellow humans. If you tell me you're a plumber, then a plumber you are as far as I'm concerned. You may be the worst plumber in the history of plumbing with no clients whatsoever, but you're still a plumber.

You don't need to be making money at it. I'm not making money at art but I still consider myself an artist and anyone who chooses to tell me I'm not is going to receive a specially designed upraised middle finger created just for them.

Stomp on the dreams of others if you must but I don't need anyone's approval and neither does anyone else. That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 01:37 PM
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. Some are bound to disagree with me. I am of the opinion that one is what one does and the level of skill is irrelevant. I understand that some people think you need to be capable of doing something well to be called a practitioner of that craft, but I choose to respect the wishes of my fellow humans. If you tell me you're a plumber, then a plumber you are as far as I'm concerned. You may be the worst plumber in the history of plumbing with no clients whatsoever, but you're still a plumber.

You don't need to be making money at it. I'm not making money at art but I still consider myself an artist and anyone who chooses to tell me I'm not is going to receive a specially designed upraised middle finger created just for them.

Stomp on the dreams of others if you must but I don't need anyone's approval and neither does anyone else. That's pretty much how I feel about it.

Talking about plumbers.
Not longer ago, actually some years ago, I did call a plumber for fix a dripping faucet on my toilet.
He did charge me $150 for a 3 minute job he did. Very clean and professional.
The rest of the 20 minutes he was at home chatting to me about wherevers.

I did learn my lesson. Next time my faucet is dripping I go to the hardware store and buy the replacement piece for $5 and I can change it for no cost.
Am I a plumber? Can I fix bigger and more complicated issues related to plumbing?
I don't think so. So, to start calling and crediting myself and as plumber would sounds a little big to me. IMHO.
I can tell people I am a plumber and I will be a plumber to them for what they are concern.
Only until they ask me to solve a plumbing problem for them.

The level of skills will determine if we are a professional, an amateur or an ignorant.
I reckon, I am an ignorant at plumbing, no matter if I call or feel myself plumber or not.

Maybe you were an "amateur" artist talking with a "professional" artist trying to paring him to your level without positive result.

Max Romaine
06-21-2015, 02:08 PM
So...every artist who makes money selling art is highly skilled? Well I most certainly don't think so but, to each their own.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 02:15 PM
So...every artist who makes money selling art is highly skilled? Well I most certainly don't think so but, to each their own.

Do you, or would you pay for have non skilled art?
I would not. But to each their own.

juan.a.stewart
06-21-2015, 02:46 PM
HA! Yeah things are getting way off here... yeah I think so.

Scribbs: My man, how ya doing. No, fixing a pipe doesn't make you a plumber unless that's what you do. Pay or no pay. Let's keep it simple.

OK... (scratching my head). There are good plumbers and there are bad plumbers, still a plumber is a plumber, insert the word art here ______ to make the comparison to what the hell this thread was about. OK, I honestly don't think this was a Pros versus Joes thing but anyway...

Levels... no we're not talking about how many levels Mario has to get up to kill Donkey Kong, but yes the level of a person's skills is what's gonna take them to make it or break it at anything... um yeah, duh.

Still again an artist is still an artist if they fix pipes and that's their thing... yeah... whoa, I mentioned pipes I meant if creating art is what they do.

This topic can go on and on but still... now what's interesting is the fact that I understood this was about artists and not what a painter is or what's it's gonna take for a person to be known as a pro... because if that's the case I see a lot of big name pro artists that artwork looks like crap to me compared to the next, so I'm going up a level to kill Donkey Kong... um I meant I rather move up a level while being an artist. HA HA HA! Yes I'm serious! Subjective, Objective??? Yo, where's my mallet? HA HA HA. To each his own duh.

Hey, I'm pretty sure the point which should be looked at in this thread is this: People are at different levels. Unless you are at a certain level in which get's you hired for a gig, then get better. No this doesn't make you less of an artist. Still no one should be looked at as a peasant just because they don't have skillz of royalty.

PEASANT TRASH!!! HA! Imagine getting called that at conventions? HA HA HA. Seriously that's cold, no one should look down on anyone, that's not encouraging. HA HA HA.

Bishop
06-21-2015, 03:53 PM
Do you, or would you pay for have non skilled art?
I would not. But to each their own.

Liefeld

Max Romaine
06-21-2015, 03:58 PM
Do you, or would you pay for have non skilled art?
I would not. But to each their own.

Yes, actually, I might. If a friend who was a poor artist put out a comic, I would probably buy it anyway to support them. Many times I've paid for comics with bad art because I liked the story. In the past I have paid money for art that wasn't that great because it had sentimental value for me. So there's three examples for you just off the top of my head.

I'm really surprised to see anyone involved in the comics scene say something like this. There are countless comics being sold every day by amateur and indie creators and, let's be honest, a lot of them have bad art. Yet people buy them anyway. The idea that nobody ever pays money for artwork that is arguably poor is simply not true. And since you never answered my question, I must assume you actually do think every artist who makes money selling art is exceptionally skilled which is also provably wrong.

And I appreciate the snarky cuteness of you throwing my own way of wording things back at me. A most mature way to debate.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 04:21 PM
Yes, actually, I might. If a friend who was a poor artist put out a comic, I would probably buy it anyway to support them. Many times I've paid for comics with bad art because I liked the story. In the past I have paid money for art that wasn't that great because it had sentimental value for me. So there's three examples for you just off the top of my head.

I'm really surprised to see anyone involved in the comics scene say something like this. There are countless comics being sold every day by amateur and indie creators and, let's be honest, a lot of them have bad art. Yet people buy them anyway. The idea that nobody ever pays money for artwork that is arguably poor is simply not true. And since you never answered my question, I must assume you actually do think every artist who makes money selling art is exceptionally skilled which is also provably wrong.

And I appreciate the snarky cuteness of you throwing my own way of wording things back at me. A most mature way to debate.

First, you are the one making differentiation between bad art and good art.

BTW, Indie creators are usually very skilled.
All the indie comics I have on my shelves were made by very skilled artists.
Indie means no mainstream production not poor quality.

An artist need to be skilled for make money on regular basis. And even so, sometimes he wouldn't be able to do so.
Now I understand why Steven Russell did cut you off from debate.
You want to be a non skilled artist and make money from your art? Go for it.
You like pay for poor quality comics? Go for it.

Morganza
06-21-2015, 04:29 PM
First, you are the one making differentiation between bad art and good art.

BTW, Indie creators are usually very skilled.
All the indie comics I have on my shelves were made by very skilled artists.
Indie means no mainstream production not poor quality.

An artist need to be skilled for make money on regular basis. And even so, sometimes he wouldn't be able to do so.
Now I understand why Steven Russell did cut you off from debate.
You want to be a non skilled artist and make money from your art? Go for it.
You like pay for poor quality comics? Go for it.

That sums it up for me as well.

Max Romaine
06-21-2015, 04:42 PM
First, you are the one making differentiation between bad art and good art.

Considering that factor is at the heart of the issue, yes there is a difference. If there weren't then the terms "good art" and "bad art" wouldn't exist because all art would be the same. This statement makes no sense.

BTW, Indie creators are usually very skilled.

If that's your opinion I can respect that, but I very strongly disagree. The vast majority of indie comics I see have art that I could not honestly describe as good.

Indie means no mainstream production not poor quality.

From Merriam-Webster.com:
Definition of INDIE
1 : one that is independent; especially : an unaffiliated record or motion-picture production company
2 : something (as a record or film) produced by an indie

There is no mention of quality in the definition whatsoever. It was merely my intention to state my opinion that I personally think most indie artists aren't very good. Indie means "independent". Nothing more.

You want to be a non skilled artist and make money from your art? Go for it.

No and nothing I said suggested any such thing.

You like pay for poor quality comics? Go for it.

No, and again, that's not at all what I said. I have no idea where you're getting this from. I suggested three perfectly reasonable situations where I might pay money for art I don't care for aesthetically. I never said that I go out of my way to buy bad art because it's bad. I've come to the conclusion you are deliberately misinterpreting what I'm trying to say to be contrary. Very little of what you've said makes any sense to me so how about we just agree to disagree.

Stewart Vernon
06-21-2015, 04:50 PM
Van Gogh famously couldn't even GIVE most of his paintings away during his lifetime... so I guess he wasn't an artist either? Or at least not a skilled one since he couldn't make money at it?

See why those are dangerous assumptions or levels to set when discussing "what is an artist?"

In ALL walks of life there are people who aren't good at their job, some even pretty bad at it, who seem to keep having a job and not get fired. IF you've ever worked in a traditional work-environment, especially offices, you've no doubt worked with or around someone who seemed to do nothing and yet kept skating by and being paid while others were let go for under-performance.

Art is no different... but, since art is also a subjective thing... being paid doesn't make you good, being a pauper doesn't make you bad.

I would also argue that although commercial art, by its name, is clearly a for-profit venture SO you'd be hard-pressed to call yourself a "commercial artist" if you aren't making money at it... BUT it too is mostly a subjective thing.

Yes, there are objective aspects... but there are objective aspects to all art if you think about it... BUT the appeal of the art, even commercial art, is purely a subjective thing... so you could be a good artist but still not be a good commercial artists IF you don't subjectively appeal to that audience.

Bottom line.

Anyone can be an artist, with little to no effort. All you need is a feeling or a story and a medium through which to attempt to communicate that feeling/story. That's it! Whether you make money, or anyone likes it, or you burn it after creating and no one ever knows... you just became an artist.

Steven Forbes
06-21-2015, 05:49 PM
I'm peeking in every so often. I'm verra, verra proud of all of you. :)

Thanks.

DaveyDouble
06-21-2015, 06:28 PM
I'm just happy someone finally spelled aesthetic properly.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 07:15 PM
[QUOTE=Stewart Vernon;1847493]Van Gogh famously couldn't even GIVE most of his paintings away during his lifetime... so I guess he wasn't an artist either? Or at least not a skilled one since he couldn't make money at it?

See why those are dangerous assumptions or levels to set when discussing "what is an artist?"

Van Gogh was a "Fine Arts" artist. He wasn't working for money but for self expression. He never cared that much about audiences acceptance.

In ALL walks of life there are people who aren't good at their job, some even pretty bad at it, who seem to keep having a job and not get fired. IF you've ever worked in a traditional work-environment, especially offices, you've no doubt worked with or around someone who seemed to do nothing and yet kept skating by and being paid while others were let go for under-performance. That is a different issue. You work in a studio and the guy next to you doesn't work, and he lose the assignment. But you can find very often guys that sell themselves over more talented people. These are working to be your future bosses and supervisors.

Art is no different... but, since art is also a subjective thing... being paid doesn't make you good, being a pauper doesn't make you bad.

Being paid doesn't make you good but you got to be basically good skilled to be paid.

I would also argue that although commercial art, by its name, is clearly a for-profit venture SO you'd be hard-pressed to call yourself a "commercial artist" if you aren't making money at it... BUT it too is mostly a subjective thing.
That is not subjective, is totally objective. You may be a "commercial artist" and no make money either. All the people working for mainstream comics are commercial artists. That doesn't mean they can make money from their art all the time.

Yes, there are objective aspects... but there are objective aspects to all art if you think about it... BUT the appeal of the art, even commercial art, is purely a subjective thing... so you could be a good artist but still not be a good commercial artists IF you don't subjectively appeal to that audience.
No. You could be a bad commercial artist if your art is not skilled enough to appeal the audience.


Bottom line.
Anyone can be an artist, with little to no effort. All you need is a feeling or a story and a medium through which to attempt to communicate that feeling/story. That's it! Whether you make money, or anyone likes it, or you burn it after creating and no one ever knows... you just became an artist.
With such criteria is the same to be a donkey or a great professor. Its all subjective and about of what we feel.

Stewart Vernon
06-21-2015, 07:47 PM
Van Gogh was a "Fine Arts" artist. He wasn't working for money but for self expression. He never cared that much about audiences acceptance.

But what difference does that make? Whether he made money or not OR whether he even wanted to make money... he's still an artist because of the things he created.

That is a different issue. You work in a studio and the guy next to you doesn't work, and he lose the assignment.

Does he? All the time? OR aren't there people who pass shoddy work and somehow manage to skate by?

All it takes is one... to get away with it... to illustrate my example.

Being paid doesn't make you good but you got to be basically good skilled to be paid.

But you can't clearly or objectively define "good" when it comes to art. You can say what you like or don't like, but that doesn't make it good or bad really.

IF, for example, you're a better salesman than you are an artist... you might be able to "sell" poorer quality art than a guy who is a better artist but a poor salesman. It happens all the time.

If all I can draw is stick-figures, I probably can't get a job from someone looking for super-detailed renderings... BUT it doesn't mean I can't find someone to pay me for my stick-figures. There is a market for that sometimes... and if I'm the first stick-figure-artist in the door that day, I might get a bunch of work without having much practical skill.

That is not subjective, is totally objective. You may be a "commercial artist" and no make money either. All the people working for mainstream comics are commercial artists. That doesn't mean they can make money from their art all the time.

True... and exactly why I try and separate money-making from whether or not a person is an artist. Just because you make money doesn't mean you are good, and not-making money doesn't mean you are bad. My only caveat here is, IF you are a "commercial" artist then you probably should have been paid at least once... otherwise what differentiates you from any other unpaid artist that you call yourself a "commercial" one?

No. You could be a bad commercial artist if your art is not skilled enough to appeal the audience.

You could also be a great artist, with lots of skill, but your style doesn't fit the product... which is why I said there is still a subjective component to commercial art. Being a "commercial artist" doesn't come without some judgement.

With such criteria is the same to be a donkey or a great professor. Its all subjective and about of what we feel.

I can never be a donkey, no matter how hard I try. I could attempt to call myself one, but I would be categorically wrong, as it is a physical impossibility.

But a professor? Sure... I could manage to finagle my way into a professor position... possibly... no matter how unlikely... and IF I get into that position I might even be good at it, perhaps great! But I couldn't very well call myself a "great professor" because that's subject to the opinions of the students... only they could call me "great"... and whether they called me "great" or not, they would be correct! But if I'm working as a professor, I'd still be a professor, whether I was any good at it or not, until they fired me.

Scribbly
06-21-2015, 09:22 PM
With such criteria is the same to be an ignorant or a great professor. Its all subjective.

Morganza
06-21-2015, 09:54 PM
This is what happens when you hire someone who claims to be a "painter" with no skills to back it up.

http://limitednews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/potatojesus.jpg
http://www.memerush.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Potato-Jesus.jpg&sp=6fd8a437531ad93ac105514609df1f08

Grimspeare
06-21-2015, 10:42 PM
And yet, the painting on the right is mesmerizing for its sheer crudity and audacity. True outsider art.

G

juan.a.stewart
06-21-2015, 10:55 PM
This is what happens when you hire someone who claims to be a "painter" with no skills to back it up.

http://limitednews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/potatojesus.jpg
http://www.memerush.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Potato-Jesus.jpg&sp=6fd8a437531ad93ac105514609df1f08

Ha Ha, I know a serious point is being made here but I can't help it...

No disrespect to the art's intention. I couldn't help notice the 2nd pic looks like the guy has a physical illness, or he's being choked to death with a scarf... either way... HA, HA, HA, one have to admit, if the artist intended on making a piece in honor of physical illness and to be choked to death by a scarf, this guy nailed it, hands down he's getting hired to do the next piece devoted to that kinda thing... (not typing this with a straight face). LOL

Schuyler
06-21-2015, 10:56 PM
Art is subjective. That is my opinion.

Comparing an artist to a plumber is a mistake, I think. Art is based on skill but also based on the observer.

Skill is all that determines the quality of a plumber. Some of that skill may be the plumber's customer service, but that is still something that can be learned, thus a skill. If a plumber does a terrible job, it will not often be disputed among two people. Whereas, the quality of a piece of art can be disputed based on the likes or dislikes of two people.

No, art is not entirely subjective, because an amateur in the same genre of art cannot be as skilled as a pro. However, they may have more feeling/style that is generally more attractive to a certain audience.

I am taking sides with Max, and Stewart. Due to the fact that art is always being interpreted by an observer, it will remain subjective. My four year old is an artist, in my opinion. She spends hours a day drawing, which is more time than I spend writing. Is she more skilled than grown artists? Of course not. Yet there is an emotion and style that trumps grown people.

The very fact that this argument exists, shows us that art is subjective. Quality is subjective. Criteria for being an artist is subjective. Since everyone is entitled to their opinions about such things, it becomes impossible for us to say who is an artist, and be undisputed.

-Sky

Morganza
06-21-2015, 11:55 PM
Art is subjective. That is my opinion.

Comparing an artist to a plumber is a mistake, I think. Art is based on skill but also based on the observer.

Skill is all that determines the quality of a plumber. Some of that skill may be the plumber's customer service, but that is still something that can be learned, thus a skill. If a plumber does a terrible job, it will not often be disputed among two people. Whereas, the quality of a piece of art can be disputed based on the likes or dislikes of two people.

No, art is not entirely subjective, because an amateur in the same genre of art cannot be as skilled as a pro. However, they may have more feeling/style that is generally more attractive to a certain audience.

I am taking sides with Max, and Stewart. Due to the fact that art is always being interpreted by an observer, it will remain subjective. My four year old is an artist, in my opinion. She spends hours a day drawing, which is more time than I spend writing. Is she more skilled than grown artists? Of course not. Yet there is an emotion and style that trumps grown people.

The very fact that this argument exists, shows us that art is subjective. Quality is subjective. Criteria for being an artist is subjective. Since everyone is entitled to their opinions about such things, it becomes impossible for us to say who is an artist, and be undisputed.

-Sky

I compared a "Painter" to a "Plumber". So you agree with Max, if you pick up a paint brush then you are a "Painter", on the same playing field as an academic art student who paid thousands to get his education?

Anybody can make art, that's not in dispute, we are talking a specific skill set, a "painter".

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 01:06 AM
I compared a "Painter" to a "Plumber". So you agree with Max, if you pick up a paint brush then you are a "Painter", on the same playing field as an academic art student who paid thousands to get his education?

Anybody can make art, that's not in dispute, we are talking a specific skill set, a "painter".

It's not that I don't see your point, Morganza. Someone who picks up a paintbrush for the first time in their lives and calls themselves a painter is foolish. But, someone who is not very good, but still paints as a hobby, are they not a painter?

-Sky

Morganza
06-22-2015, 01:44 AM
It's not that I don't see your point, Morganza. Someone who picks up a paintbrush for the first time in their lives and calls themselves a painter is foolish. But, someone who is not very good, but still paints as a hobby, are they not a painter?

-Sky

I would say, "Artist". Unless they learn how to paint, education is everything to someone who desires to fulfill that need to paint. If someone is just painting to pass the time with no ambition, then no, that person is not a painter.

And that person would have no argument to hold over a person who aspires to be a competent painter.

I don't believe in doing something half-assed and taking up the mantle of whatever specific discipline that it entails and act as if you are on the same level or entitled to it.

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 02:53 AM
I would say, "Artist". Unless they learn how to paint, education is everything to someone who desires to fulfill that need to paint. If someone is just painting to pass the time with no ambition, then no, that person is not a painter.

And that person would have no argument to hold over a person who aspires to be a competent painter.

I don't believe in doing something half-assed and taking up the mantle of whatever specific discipline that it entails and act as if you are on the same level or entitled to it.


Yeah, I guess I'm not sure what to say to that.

But, are you saying that someone has to have a formal education to be a painter? Or just be at a certain skill level? And if it's just a skill level, how do you determine that level?


-Sky

DaveyDouble
06-22-2015, 04:24 AM
Sorry Morganza, that's absolute codshit.

Someone who paints a single picture is not a painter, just like someone who changes a single tire is not a mechanic, and someone who hooks one laptop to a TV is not an AV technician.

But if you do it with any regularity, that's what you are, that's what you do.
Write shit haiku's in your lunch break that only you ever see? You're still a poet.

I'm not going to get into the debate around Professional and Amateur. It's a simple distinction, and the argument is so very irritating. But the only people who ever try to dictate who can an cannot be called an 'artist' are the "Pro's".

Well, fuck em.

Scribbly
06-22-2015, 05:48 AM
Yeah, I guess I'm not sure what to say to that.

But, are you saying that someone has to have a formal education to be a painter? Or just be at a certain skill level? And if it's just a skill level, how do you determine that level?
-Sky
Why you ask? Don't you have eyes and the common sense to see what is the level?

DaveyDouble
06-22-2015, 06:44 AM
Why you ask? Don't you have eyes and the common sense to see what is the level?

That's not the point. You are now saying that there is a level at which you become qualified to call yourself an Artist.
What is that level? Who decides that level? What are those decisions based on?
How do you become qualified to qualify others? Why is qualification required?
Who benefits from the requirement to be qualified, how and why?

Grimspeare
06-22-2015, 07:21 AM
There does seem to be some validity in the pro vs amateur part of the discussion. When someone asks you "who are you? / what do you do?" They typically mean "how do you make your living?" If you're not doing it by making art, can you truly call yourself an artist?

However, you could also look at it like being a father. The only real requirement is having had a child. You might not have seen them in ten years, or you might be super-dad who's way into bonding and family. Either way, you can call both those types of men a father ... technically. Is the same true of the artist?

G

Bulletboy-Redux
06-22-2015, 08:26 AM
That's the problem with things that don't really have any rules. Everyone's always trying to stick their own rules onto it. "What is art?" is kind of a pointless question because everyone gets something different out of it. Art is whatever someone decides art is for them. And no one has the "right" answer.

Morganza
06-22-2015, 09:44 AM
Sorry Morganza, that's absolute codshit.

Someone who paints a single picture is not a painter, just like someone who changes a single tire is not a mechanic, and someone who hooks one laptop to a TV is not an AV technician.

But if you do it with any regularity, that's what you are, that's what you do.
Write shit haiku's in your lunch break that only you ever see? You're still a poet.

I'm not going to get into the debate around Professional and Amateur. It's a simple distinction, and the argument is so very irritating. But the only people who ever try to dictate who can an cannot be called an 'artist' are the "Pro's".

Well, fuck em.


Nobody made any claims over who is an artist verses who isn't, it was about being a painter, the original poster misrepresented his argument and substituted Painter for Artist in a lame attempt to get people on his side.

So now, every time someone comes in with an opinion, it's only about the word artist and not the argument.

I learned to see distinctions/ levels, I've learned what it takes to be proficient in comic book art and other disciplines. I can look at a comic page and tell you why it works or why it failed, doesn't make me a snob, I busted my ass to learn it.

Some of you seem bent out of shape over what a pro thinks, if you don't give a shit about quality or skill level then don't worry about it. Some people aspire to be better at what they do, if that upsets you then you are the one with the problem.

Drawing is my hobby also, because I enjoy it, I aspire to be the best I can be at it. It's not a crossword puzzle or something to pass the time with, I take it very serious.

At this point, I'm just mumbling to myself, carry on.

juan.a.stewart
06-22-2015, 10:31 AM
the original poster misrepresented his argument and substituted Painter for Artist in a lame attempt to get people on his side

Morganza, I'm pretty sure anyone who wants to draw or do comics knows that you gotta step ya game up in order to compete with the best or even be considered to hang with the rest, if they don't they're kidding themselves. I will refuse to buy an X-Men comic drawn at a kindergarten level. "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way", hey those guys dint put that book together for their own health...

I don't think Max misrepresented his words to get people on his side, I think he's just confusing himself. I don't think he's at that level of Kung Fu Trickery, but if he is, it's not a good one tho', to be honest.

That's the problem with things that don't really have any rules. Everyone's always trying to stick their own rules onto it. "What is art?" is kind of a pointless question because everyone gets something different out of it. Art is whatever someone decides art is for them. And no one has the "right" answer.

NO. There's no rule to style but, there's a rule to having a foundation, knowing how things work before you can break them. Not sure if this is what you meant, but there's a difference.

What an artist is, is clear even to the organisms on Mars (exaggerated like foreshortening in comics for emphasis). I mean really, if someone doesn't care about getting better then they have the right to stick with that but when it's time to take things seriously, they should also expect to get rejected by companies with a "we're not ready for you", if they're lucky, if they're not, they get a look from the guy looking at their portfolio like he has to take a mean dump.

vartemis
06-22-2015, 11:00 AM
Because it's subjective, I don't think you'll ever agree. You could label one as an unskilled artist, but that would also be subjective. I can play baseball, but I'm not very good. When I'm on the diamond, technically I am a baseball player, albeit a crappy one.

In my opinion, labeling yourself is meaningless. You can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't mean anything until someone of matter bestows it upon you. You can call your kid an artist, but that doesn't make them one.

You label yourself an artist, fine. But maybe your a sh*tty artist that knows nothing about anatomy and your perspective is crap. Your artist label is about as valid as a diploma from an online diploma mill. You believe in it, but everyone else knows your just taking the piss.

j

Morganza
06-22-2015, 11:29 AM
I don't think Max misrepresented his words to get people on his side, I think he's just confusing himself. I don't think he's at that level of Kung Fu Trickery, but if he is, it's not a good one tho', to be honest.



NO. There's no rule to style but, there's a rule to having a foundation, knowing how things work before you can break them. Not sure if this is what you meant, but there's a difference.

What an artist is, is clear even to the organisms on Mars (exaggerated like foreshortening in comics for emphasis). I mean really, if someone doesn't care about getting better then they have the right to stick with that but when it's time to take things seriously, they should also expect to get rejected by companies with a "we're not ready for you", if they're lucky, if they're not, they get a look from the guy looking at their portfolio like he has to take a mean dump.

Kung Fu trickery!? We need to be friends! And I agree with you on all points.

DaveyDouble
06-22-2015, 11:43 AM
Nobody made any claims over who is an artist verses who isn't

https://www.facebook.com/stevenrussellblack/posts/10205604369701816?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A% 22O%22%7D&pnref=story

Steven Russell Black, whom this thread is about, rejecting the term artist because 'everyone' claims to be an artist, and instead claiming the term 'draughtsman' and 'painter' because, as far as I can tell, other people aren't currently claiming to be that and so the term has value linked to it.

This isn't about art, or what it means to be an artist, this is about market differentiation. SRB is irritated by what he views to be a devaluation of the word used to describe how he makes his money.
What he's saying is that there is no barrier to entry to being an artist, in a negative way. He is saying that there should be a barrier to distinguish hobbyists from professionals, but he's also couching in generalised terms that devalues the artistic merit of someone who doesn't match his personal benchmark.

As an artist of note and, at least limited, influence he is not speaking in a vacuum. He made a public statement and has been called out on it by Max, and others. Max engaged him in a debate, and SRB made it clear that, buried in a comment thread on FB, he doesn't regard hobbyists of any level as artists. He is disregarding their merit and value and that of their work.

Max challenged him to make that statement, to fully, publicly publish that exact statement to see what his fans thought of it. It is elitist.
It's no different than James Hetfield coming out and saying that he doesn't regard the guitarist of an unknown band to be a guitarist or a songwriter.

It's the same as James Cameron coming out and saying he doesn't regard an unknown student film-maker to be a film-maker or storyteller.

The core of his argument is that unless you are recognised by a certain inner group within your field, you have no legitimacy in calling yourself anything in relation to a given pursuit. and the lack of legitimacy essentially devalues your work to the point of irrelevance.

It's bullshit.

Max Romaine
06-22-2015, 12:34 PM
the original poster misrepresented his argument and substituted Painter for Artist in a lame attempt to get people on his side.

Are you actually so arrogant as to assume that you're able to read my mind and know what my motivations are even though these perceived motivations are completely contrary to everything I've been saying?

Morganza, you are an arrogant ass not worth the effort it would take to explain it to you. Believe what you like. I don't really care.

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 12:39 PM
Greetings to Davey, a fellow AV tech, and thank you for posting the original argument.

I still agree with Max. A painter is someone who paints. That definition comes before the quality of their painting.

Max, you got a little out of hand in defending your stance. You said that Steven banned you, but you are the one that dismissed him first.

In fact, I don't think I wish to associate with an artist who thinks he's better than everyone else. Goodbye Mr. Black. I hope you someday learn what art truly is because I don't think you've figured it out yet.

I did not read past this. If it was after this that you asked him to post his argument publicly, I am not surprised that he would not. You defeated your own argument, Max. And, you insulted the man. I understand if you feel passionately about the topic, but so does Steven. I still agree with you, but I want you to accept that you are partly responsible for him banning you.

-Sky

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 12:41 PM
Are you actually so arrogant as to assume that you're able to read my mind and know what my motivations are even though these perceived motivations are completely contrary to everything I've been saying?

Morganza, you are an arrogant ass not worth the effort it would take to explain it to you. Believe what you like. I don't really care.

Same thing.

I respect Morganza, and by calling him an arrogant ass, you are only diminishing yourself.

Stop that.

-Sky

juan.a.stewart
06-22-2015, 12:48 PM
Kung Fu trickery!? We need to be friends! And I agree with you on all points.
Sure, friend request sent.

Are you actually so arrogant as to assume that you're able to read my mind and know what my motivations are even though these perceived motivations are completely contrary to everything I've been saying?
Morganza, you are an arrogant ass not worth the effort it would take to explain it to you. Believe what you like. I don't really care.

Max, yes we're all adults (I hope so) 'cause coochie is finger licking good HA, HA, HA, yes like the name calling my statement 'bout coochie is uncalled for. Please tell us this isn't the reason why Steven called you insane...

Morganza
06-22-2015, 12:51 PM
Are you actually so arrogant as to assume that you're able to read my mind and know what my motivations are even though these perceived motivations are completely contrary to everything I've been saying?

Morganza, you are an arrogant ass not worth the effort it would take to explain it to you. Believe what you like. I don't really care.

My opinion is based on what you posted here, you used "Artist", then later on you said "Painter". I will stop commenting.

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 12:59 PM
Sure, friend request sent.



Max, yes we're all adults (I hope so) 'cause coochie is finger licking good HA, HA, HA, yes like the name calling my statement 'bout coochie is uncalled for. Please tell us this isn't the reason why Steven called you insane...

The Jaz180, you crack me up! I imagine you talk like you type, or type like you talk. I respect that, and it is also entertaining.

-Sky

Buckyrig
06-22-2015, 01:06 PM
If you grab a tool and try to fix plumbing, you're a plumber. You may be a bad plumber, but you're a plumber. The level of skill is irrelevant. That is my point.

Not according to the state. There are education, experience, and licensing requirements in order to call oneself a plumber.

Buckyrig
06-22-2015, 01:17 PM
it’s whether it moves you emotionally, whatever that means.

Even that may be limiting. Christopher Nolan has made some very good and interesting movies. But there isn't so much in them as far as emotionally moving aspects.

Scribbly
06-22-2015, 03:21 PM
That's not the point. You are now saying that there is a level at which you become qualified to call yourself an Artist.
What is that level? Who decides that level? What are those decisions based on?
How do you become qualified to qualify others? Why is qualification required?
Who benefits from the requirement to be qualified, how and why?

Are you an artist and you don't know the answer to that?
And why do you want my answer if you are going to relativize it no matter what the answer is?
As I said before, for you guys in Art is the same to be an ignorant monkey than a great professor because for you in Art all is subjective.
Apparently, everybody is entitled to call himself artist. Wonderful.
After all, almost everybody got to be in kindergarten once, doing collage and drawing with crayons in a piece of paper.

Very often I find myself doing mathematical calculations, additions, subtractions, multiplying and dividing.
Maybe I should start calling myself a mathematician after that.

juan.a.stewart
06-22-2015, 03:30 PM
https://www.facebook.com/stevenrussellblack/posts/10205604369701816?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A% 22O%22%7D&pnref=story

Steven Russell Black, whom this thread is about, rejecting the term artist because 'everyone' claims to be an artist, and instead claiming the term 'draughtsman' and 'painter' because, as far as I can tell, other people aren't currently claiming to be that and so the term has value linked to it.

This isn't about art, or what it means to be an artist, this is about market differentiation. SRB is irritated by what he views to be a devaluation of the word used to describe how he makes his money.
What he's saying is that there is no barrier to entry to being an artist, in a negative way. He is saying that there should be a barrier to distinguish hobbyists from professionals, but he's also couching in generalised terms that devalues the artistic merit of someone who doesn't match his personal benchmark.

As an artist of note and, at least limited, influence he is not speaking in a vacuum. He made a public statement and has been called out on it by Max, and others. Max engaged him in a debate, and SRB made it clear that, buried in a comment thread on FB, he doesn't regard hobbyists of any level as artists. He is disregarding their merit and value and that of their work.

Max challenged him to make that statement, to fully, publicly publish that exact statement to see what his fans thought of it. It is elitist.
It's no different than James Hetfield coming out and saying that he doesn't regard the guitarist of an unknown band to be a guitarist or a songwriter.

It's the same as James Cameron coming out and saying he doesn't regard an unknown student film-maker to be a film-maker or storyteller.

The core of his argument is that unless you are recognised by a certain inner group within your field, you have no legitimacy in calling yourself anything in relation to a given pursuit. and the lack of legitimacy essentially devalues your work to the point of irrelevance.

It's bullshit.


In that FB dispute they're chatting about terms that are used wrong.

Still, this does fall under an artist reaching the level of being considered the "Master". To be a draftsman means you are well versatile with most mediums. (Not Webster's definition, my own). Steven's point stands whether it's disagreed upon. Help me out, where is it stating people calling themselves draftsmen, when they shouldn't? I do get pissed off reading professional so and so when their work looks questionable.

Either way, what's important here should be obvious.

Now, in there a hobbyist versus the artist is something that's too annoying. It should be known as the professional versus the hobbyist. Why? Because they're both artist, one gets paid for it and the other don't.

Still, this doesn't mean he isn't an artist, just means he isn't a pro 'cause he's not in it for money, he wants to just pleasure himself, I meant he's into his own thing.

The Jaz180, you crack me up! I imagine you talk like you type, or type like you talk. I respect that, and it is also entertaining.

-Sky

Yes, but of course I'm just being myself. Thank you. :cool:

Schuyler
06-22-2015, 04:48 PM
Are you an artist and you don't know the answer to that?
And why do you want my answer if you are going to relativize it no matter what the answer is?
As I said before, for you guys in Art is the same to be an ignorant monkey than a great professor because for you in Art all is subjective.
Apparently, everybody is entitled to call himself artist. Wonderful.
After all, almost everybody got to be in kindergarten once, doing collage and drawing with crayons in a piece of paper.

Very often I found myself doing mathematical calculations, additions, subtractions, multiplying and dividing.
Maybe I should start calling myself a mathematician after that.

First of all, you are telling us relativity is bad and then telling us we have to answer the question for ourselves.

Second of all, no one said that everything is subjective in art. But, due to a lot of grey area and subjectivity, it becomes very difficult to set an entry level, at which point a person can call themselves an artist.

A professor is someone who has that job. Yes, there are plenty of ignorant ones.

A mathematician generally denotes a certain amount of schooling. Art does not.

I am not saying that people should not or don't study their art form. Any artist who wants to be respected by their peers, as well as their audience, takes their role seriously. I imagine there are people that call themselves an artist and do not deserve that title. However, if they tell me they are an artist, I withhold judgment until I have seen the art. If I thought someone's art was not good, I don't go around telling people that they are not really an artist. I may have something to say about their work ethic, which would relate back to their personal education. I might say something about what I don't like about the art, which may relate to skill level. But, I don't disqualify them from the game.

-Sky

DaveyDouble
06-22-2015, 04:56 PM
@TheJaz - You're talking about other people using terms in the wrong way, and then you immediately go on to explicitly use the term 'draughtsman' in the wrong way.

A draughtsman is a technical artist, tasked with completing technical and scientific drawings under the direction of engineers, architects and scientists.
A professional artist is one who relies on completing artwork as their primary source of income, the same as any other professional.

@Scribbly - Those are questions for you to answer, because you're supporting the idea that artists require qualification to deserve the title.
I don't support that position. If I was to answer those questions, it would be to outline that they all support an elitist and exclusionary market system, specifically benefitting established, commercial artists. They represent a barrier to entry, which can only be removed by gaining a level of recognised qualification from a sanctioned body.

One of my favourite artists is Adam Warren. He dropped out of the Kubert school. Is he less of an artist because of it?
I've completed a number of qualifications in the Arts. Does that make me more of an artist?

juan.a.stewart
06-22-2015, 05:29 PM
@TheJaz - You're talking about other people using terms in the wrong way, and then you immediately go on to explicitly use the term 'draughtsman' in the wrong way.

A draughtsman is a technical artist, tasked with completing technical and scientific drawings under the direction of engineers, architects and scientists.

Sorry you're giving a general definition of a draftsman your point does not help. Let's be specific and not vague. Only a draftsman is at a higher level compared to the one whose skills is less or plain garbage. I'm specifically talking about what's obvious. Hmm, Steven hopes to earn the title painter soon... he got skills.

A professional artist is one who relies on completing artwork as their primary source of income, the same as any other professional.

It should be known as the professional versus the hobbyist. Why? Because they're both artist, one gets paid for it and the other don't.

Still, this doesn't mean he isn't an artist, just means he isn't a pro 'cause he's not in it for money, he wants to just pleasure himself, I meant he's into his own thing.

Duh, he gets paid for it. Still those people are going about it the wrong way. Leave the hobbyist in his place and leave the pro in his place, they're still both artists.

Stewart Vernon
06-22-2015, 06:13 PM
If you create art, you are an artist... if you paint, you are a painter.

Terms like "Master" and "Professional" and "Draughtsman" tend to denote skill levels, years of experience, education, and perhaps employment or at least attempts at employment... but they are classes of artists or painters.

Nobody has said all artists are equally skilled... all painters are equally popular... or anything of the sort! Some artists and painters are better to others, at least in our opinions... and some make more money at it than others. Some do it entirely for fun too, without regard to profit!

I saw a comment that one painting does not make you a painter... So, how many does it take? Two? Three? Five? Where do you draw that arbitrary line that says "you must have painted at least this many" to become a painter?

It's all subjective.

Somehow I sense some "you can't call yourself the same as me because I've worked harder at it" jealousy creeping in there... but that makes no sense to me. If I call myself an artist, it certainly doesn't put the scare into established professionals out there who fear me coming after their jobs! So why would it bother them for me to call myself an artist?

I'm not a painter, though... I don't paint. I've thought about it... but I haven't... not since a little kid and that was so long ago that I don't count it. I am better at drawing some things than others, so I have limitations, but I have no reservations about calling myself an artist.

DaveyDouble
06-22-2015, 06:35 PM
Dude, that's about as specific as it gets. A draughtsman is not just someone who draws shit. They draw specific shit, for specific reasons. These days, they don't even draw. I know a number of people who create technical drawings, required to construct complex structures and systems. None of them can 'draw'. They all use a CAD program.
It's a specific artistic pursuit. It's technical illustration.
If I draw out a construction diagram for a friend who is designing something, I am the draughtsman.

These are nouns. They are the names we as a culture give to people performing a set of actions.

I'm not getting into discussing pro v am. It's redundant. It is self evident. They are also nouns.

If SRB has laid down a stroke of paint, he's a painter. He, nor any other person on Earth, requires the validation of any other person to have participated in the creation of artwork, not the pursuit of an artistic life.

Nobody needs the approval of anyone else in order to attempt to communicate with the wider world.
It is not up to SRB who gets to be an artist, and who gets to be told to put the tools down and leave it to the people who take it 'seriously'.

I've found, in over 20 years of dealing with people who take Art seriously, that most of them are only interested in excluding others and enforcing their own narrow set of beliefs about what should and shouldn't be considered art.
For the first 5 of those, I didn't really have a way of articulating what I thought was wrong with their point. But every time since, Ive raised my voice whenever I hear this kind of bullshit, because the people who spout it absolutely deserve to be told that they are not only factually incorrect, but lack even the most basic understanding of what art actually is.

juan.a.stewart
06-22-2015, 07:10 PM
Dude, that's about as specific as it gets. A draughtsman is not just someone who draws shit. They draw specific shit, for specific reasons. These days, they don't even draw. I know a number of people who create technical drawings, required to construct complex structures and systems. None of them can 'draw'. They all use a CAD program.
It's a specific artistic pursuit. It's technical illustration.
If I draw out a construction diagram for a friend who is designing something, I am the draughtsman.

These are nouns. They are the names we as a culture give to people performing a set of actions.

I'm not getting into discussing pro v am. It's redundant. It is self evident. They are also nouns.

HA, HA, HA, Ya messing with me right? ... they don't draw shit... they draw specific shit... but yet they draw right? I'm messing with you on that, but here's my point:

A draftsman specifically known to most of us that draw stuff however which way it's done has already been stated by me, being versatile with different mediums. That's how it's known here. When I was in art school, that's how I knew it, when I chat with pros, that's how it was known. Your term is known but not for what specifically people who draw do.

Michelangelo was a draftsman, and he drew. John Buscema is a draftsman, and he was like Michelangelo to Stan Lee. Alex Ross is a draftsman. Brian Stelfreeze is a draftsman (the man). I can list more but why bother... I think I'm being teased but anyway.

No, pros vs the hobbyist there's a difference. There's the Hobbyist, Amateur, and Professional Artist. Google it I'm not getting into it either. I'm just glad I know the difference. I'm not saying you don't, just wanted other's to see as well, but those people were disputing the hobbyist versus the artist.

I'll say it again no one should look down upon anyone. I still honestly can't see how Steven was doing that after reading his points. I thought he was basically telling people to get their game up if they wanna hang in this field or sit the hell down. Hmm... am I right? If the word artist wasn't used so vaguely maybe I can see it better.

Rob Norton
06-22-2015, 07:23 PM
Christopher Nolan has made some very good and interesting movies. But there isn't so much in them as far as emotionally moving aspects.

I couldn't disagree with you more on that statement. but therein is "art" for you. everyone sees the same thing and perceives it differently. and that's all good and fine.

reading this whole thread over, ive come to a few initial conclusions.

-I find myself strangely agreeing with DaveyDoubles position...

-scribbly is kinda responding a liiiitle bit as a pretentious douche...

-art is subjective and defies classification most times because it varies on peoples perceptions.''

- Liefeld
(meaning he draws absolute garbage but hes an artist, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. he has a huge following of fans and money out the wahzoo from his art. and that's infuriating)

Scribbly
06-22-2015, 11:24 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more on that statement. but therein is "art" for you. everyone sees the same thing and perceives it differently. and that's all good and fine.

reading this whole thread over, ive come to a few initial conclusions.

-I find myself strangely agreeing with DaveyDoubles position...

-scribbly is kinda responding a liiiitle bit as a pretentious douche...

-art is subjective and defies classification most times because it varies on peoples perceptions.''

- Liefeld
(meaning he draws absolute garbage but hes an artist, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. he has a huge following of fans and money out the wahzoo from his art. and that's infuriating)


Sorry if I sound as a pretentious douche.
I thought that pretentious douches and arrogant ass were these that think that anyone can call himself artist just because at some point on life they randomly and sporadically made some artistic stuff.
But maybe I'm wrong and they are right . From a subjective point of view.

From my point of view, nobody can call himself this or that just because he can do stuff that is related with some particular activity.
I can play baseball, and be very good and skilled at it. Probably because I played it half of my childhood and maybe almost all my teenage years. Can I define myself as baseball player?
I like to cook, sing and play music. Should I define myself as cook or singer or musician?
I don't know. I don't know if I can compare myself with someone who did choose any of these activities for make the center, the reason and the definition of his life.
When I find someone who chose Art as option, motif and reason of life over everything else I know that I am in front of an artist.

Stewart Vernon
06-23-2015, 01:00 AM
From my point of view, nobody can call himself this or that just because he can do stuff that is related with some particular activity.

But... isn't that the very definition of things? Who and how do you determine who is allowed to call themselves by what they have done, and how is your criteria the only measuring stick?

What happens tomorrow, when you are no longer considered an artist (if you are one today) because the definition has shifted yet again? Pluto is no longer a planet after all, because the scientific community redefined what a planet "is"... but Pluto is the same Pluto now as it was long before we decided what to call it.


I can play baseball, and be very good and skilled at it. Probably because I played it half of my childhood and maybe almost all my teenage years. Can I define myself as baseball player?

Why can't you? You can't call yourself a professional baseball player, perhaps, if you haven't played professionally... and you can't say you've been in MLB unless you have actually been in MLB... but what about the kid who plays in his neighborhood every summer? Why is he any less of a baseball player than another kid who plays in little league every summer? I'm not asking who is better at it... I'm just saying they are, to whatever degree, participating in the same activity over time.

I like to cook, sing and play music. Should I define myself as cook or singer or musician?

Again, why not? I can't sing or play music... but I can cook, and I enjoy it. I've never been employed as a cook or taken money for it, so I wouldn't call myself a professional... but if cornered, I could say I'm a cook. I wouldn't say I'm a chef, though, as that implies a higher degree of skill than I possess.

I don't know. I don't know if I can compare myself with someone who did choose any of these activities for make the center, the reason and the definition of his life.

There's the rub... the comparison. That's where I part the red sea. I don't see why it matters how good another artist is or how much more work he has done than you, or how much more money he has made, or how popular he is.

Asking if you are as good as another artist is an ENTIRELY different conversation... one that begs comparison.

But just to ask if you are an artist? That need no comparison to anyone.

Think... "if a tree falls in the forest..." It still makes a sound even if no one is there to hear it, right? Well... you're an artist even if no one ever sees or likes or pays for your art. The act of creating and expressing yourself makes you an artist.

Scribbly
06-23-2015, 01:40 AM
Well, I wish you good luck as artist in real life, outside these forums.
To you and all that are playing that song.

DaveyDouble
06-23-2015, 02:53 AM
Well, I wish you good luck as artist in real life, outside these forums.
To you and all that are playing that song.


Yeah, your original version of that post was way douchier, but that one still works.

DaveyDouble
06-23-2015, 04:36 AM
@TheJaz - They aren't draughtsmen. They're illustrators. Da Vinci was a draughtsman, an engineer, an illustrator and a painter.

You should read up on the roots of the word 'artist'. It's a vague noun. It always has been. It's not a prize, its not recognition of a 'gift'. You, and every other artist out there is not 'gifted' with ability. The creation of art is result of practising a craft.
You don't get to be special because you can draw or paint better than most people you know. Humans have painted and drawn since we lived in caves.

Art is the result of an attempt to communicate.

Scribbly
06-23-2015, 08:38 AM
Yeah, your original version of that post was way douchier, but that one still works.

Am learning from the masters.;)

juan.a.stewart
06-23-2015, 09:44 AM
@TheJaz - They aren't draughtsmen. They're illustrators. Da Vinci was a draughtsman, an engineer, an illustrator and a painter.

You should read up on the roots of the word 'artist'. It's a vague noun. It always has been. It's not a prize, its not recognition of a 'gift'. You, and every other artist out there is not 'gifted' with ability. The creation of art is result of practising a craft.
You don't get to be special because you can draw or paint better than most people you know. Humans have painted and drawn since we lived in caves.

Art is the result of an attempt to communicate.


Davey, thank you for allowing me to understand where you're coming from, so on that note, I'm going to follow what most artists don't do here in DW, and that's waste their time with this kind of back and forth. I only did it because someone might learn something.

I'm just thankful, I've been blessed to be around people that are in the field and know what the hell I'm talking about, and I mean in real life. Most of the crap I've mentioned, people like them have been saying it for years and it's sound. Anyone can agree with whatever they want but too bad when the art community, comic community look at them like they're insane, when they sound like they need help.

And for the record respect the subject, I don't care what you think and what others like you say, you ain't going far with that kinda of thinking, it dint go far with most people when they were learning about art and it dint go far when they were doing this stuff for a living.

To Max, what I said about an artist being an artist still stands, and no one should look down on anyone. I'm done posting in this thread.

(Drops his mic)

DaveyDouble
06-23-2015, 12:34 PM
I've been blessed to be around people that are in the field and know what the hell I'm talking about, and I mean in real life.

I'm glad that you've found people who understand the absolute bollocks you come out with. Good on you.

Buckyrig
06-23-2015, 01:05 PM
I think we can fix 80% of this problem through the judicious use of the word 'aspiring'.

:p

Scribbly
06-23-2015, 01:56 PM
I think we can fix 80% of this problem through the judicious use of the word 'aspiring'.

:p

I think you got the point.
Or: dilettante, art enthusiast, fan, aficionado, dabbler in art, amateur, talented.

DaveyDouble
06-23-2015, 02:18 PM
Hey, why not attach 'jumped up', 'pompous' 'entitled' or 'delusional' to the list?

Scribbly
06-23-2015, 02:57 PM
Hey, why not attach 'jumped up', 'pompous' 'entitled' or 'delusional' to the list?

We are saving these for you. :nyah:

DaveyDouble
06-23-2015, 04:18 PM
Oh, I already have a title. It's Arsehole.

But, thanks anyway.

Stewart Vernon
06-23-2015, 04:57 PM
I've always said I don't mind a little arrogance, BUT it comes with a caveat. IF you're going to be arrogant, you'd better be REALLY good. I mean, if you come at me with arrogant flaws, I have no patience for you... but if you're arrogant and right, I'll suffer your arrogance.

Morganza
06-23-2015, 05:04 PM
I've always said I don't mind a little arrogance, BUT it comes with a caveat. IF you're going to be arrogant, you'd better be REALLY good. I mean, if you come at me with arrogant flaws, I have no patience for you... but if you're arrogant and right, I'll suffer your arrogance.

So are you saying only professionals can critique your work? How is that not elitist?

Schuyler
06-23-2015, 05:21 PM
I've always said I don't mind a little arrogance, BUT it comes with a caveat. IF you're going to be arrogant, you'd better be REALLY good. I mean, if you come at me with arrogant flaws, I have no patience for you... but if you're arrogant and right, I'll suffer your arrogance.

I disagree. Arrogance has turned me away from artists I previously loved. While humility has turned me on to artists that I previously took no notice of.

I work with bands and artists a lot. Arrogance is to be expected, and a certain amount of it is even tolerable. However, my favorite people to work with are always humble. Those are the people that I will bend over backwards for. Those are the guys that I will setup their projector, get their PowerPoint running, and then go buy a cup of coffee. Or, while I'm running sound, I go up on stage after every song to check on the players. Whereas, you come at me like a jerk, you don't get anything you don't ask for.

I always try to do my job with the same professionalism, but if someone makes me care more, I'll go over the top. Arrogance never wins.

-Sky

Stewart Vernon
06-23-2015, 08:17 PM
So are you saying only professionals can critique your work? How is that not elitist?

Not saying that at all. ANYONE can critique my work... just don't be arrogant about it unless you're right. :)

Stewart Vernon
06-23-2015, 08:20 PM
I disagree. Arrogance has turned me away from artists I previously loved. While humility has turned me on to artists that I previously took no notice of.

I work with bands and artists a lot. Arrogance is to be expected, and a certain amount of it is even tolerable. However, my favorite people to work with are always humble. Those are the people that I will bend over backwards for. Those are the guys that I will setup their projector, get their PowerPoint running, and then go buy a cup of coffee. Or, while I'm running sound, I go up on stage after every song to check on the players. Whereas, you come at me like a jerk, you don't get anything you don't ask for.

I always try to do my job with the same professionalism, but if someone makes me care more, I'll go over the top. Arrogance never wins.


True... and I do agree, I much prefer being around friendly people. Not because I want to be around "yes" men... I want people who will call me out on things... but I prefer people who are nicer about it.

I once took some comics to a convention for an artist to sign... and he looked up and asked me "you actually like this?" and he was so arrogant about it, that I fired back without thinking "when you put it like that, maybe I don't" and it was a long time before I bought anything that artist worked on again!

My earlier point, though, was that while I do not like arrogance... I'm willing to take a little of it coming from someone who is right.

Morganza
06-23-2015, 08:49 PM
Not saying that at all. ANYONE can critique my work... just don't be arrogant about it unless you're right. :)

Can you recall someone on this site being arrogant with you about your work? I'd like to see what you are talking about through your eyes, I'm not entirely sure I'm not elitist.

Stewart Vernon
06-23-2015, 08:52 PM
Can you recall someone on this site being arrogant with you about your work? I'd like to see what you are talking about through your eyes, I'm not entirely sure I'm not elitist.

No... I was speaking in general, not about experiences on this forum. Sorry if there was confusion on that. It was just a general life-experience point I was making.

The roughest experience for me on this site was commentary on a couple of scripts I was writing, and I knew going in that I had a LOT of problems with my script... so I expected a lot of negative critiques... and I got them! :)

Schuyler
06-23-2015, 09:34 PM
I realize elitism has been at the heart of this topic, but I would say that we are all elitists.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

If you take the words 'ancestry' and 'wealth' out of this definition, I would say that I am an elitist.

Except, for one thing. I am the most elite. After all the authorities have weighed in on a topic, I still get to decide for myself.

-Sky

Buckyrig
06-24-2015, 12:13 PM
Arrogance isn't ok. Everyone is guilty of it once in a while, so it's good to overlook it sometimes and somewhat. But that doesn't mean it's justified.

There's a reason Val Kilmer barely works, and Ben Affleck is always working.

DaveyDouble
06-24-2015, 12:14 PM
Yeah, but Val Kilmer is -arguably- the better actor.

Buckyrig
06-24-2015, 12:16 PM
Yeah, but Val Kilmer is -arguably- the better actor.

That's my point.

He's got a reputation as an arrogant pain in the ass, and people often don't want to work with him. Affleck, on the other hand, often has his acting denigrated, but has a reputation as the nicest guy in the movie biz.

Newt
06-24-2015, 01:05 PM
Fun fact: "artist" is derived from the Latin ars, meaning "skill".

Less fun fact: all this nonsense about "fine art" and the artist as some sort of elevated individual is a residuum of (mostly) painters from the late Renaissance onward trying to do some social climbing from their traditional position among the tailors, jewelers, potters, masons, carpenters, and smiths, to a loftier position among the intellectual elite.

Even less fun fact: if you want to hear this argument played out for hours on end, go hang out with some first year art students. On second thought, don't. It only encourages them.

And wrapping up with another fun fact: "plumber" comes from the Latin plumbum, meaning "lead", once an important material for pipes and fittings. See also: plumb bob.

You're all welcome.

Buckyrig
06-24-2015, 01:09 PM
And wrapping up with another fun fact: "plumber" comes from the Latin plumbum, meaning "lead", once an important material for pipes and fittings. See also: plumb bob.

I thought the word originally meant someone who uses a plumb bob.

Either my memory is shot, or my high school chemistry teacher was wrong. (Which is possible. I mean, he was a New York Rangers fan :w00t: )

Newt
06-24-2015, 01:18 PM
Both? A plumb bob is also traditionally made of lead, thus the etymological connection. And thus "plumb," meaning perfectly vertical, the condition a plumb bob is used to check. And thus "plumb good," as in, "That cornpone was plumb good, Ma," a usage similar to "right good" or "proper good".

But plumbers don't have much use for plumb bobs.

Vaguely relevant aside: I've fixed a lot of sinks, commodes, and drains in my day, but I don't call myself a plumber. It has implications. The trouble is that it's easier to tell if a supposed "plumber" knows what he's doing than a supposed "artist", thankyouverymuch Modernism.

Stewart Vernon
06-24-2015, 05:15 PM
Arguably, with the banning of lead pipes, plumbers have long been in need of a new title ;)

I wouldn't call myself any kind of plumber... but consider... You call a plumber and describe your problem, they send out a guy who fixes it. Unbeknownst to you the guy they sent out can only fix a couple of kinds of problems. He is a beginner/novice and is learning on the job... What's the difference between he and you IF you also could fix a couple of kinds of problems?

I speak from first-hand knowledge... one of my early jobs was at a two-way radio shop. I could do a lot of different things, but I had a skill-limit and yet they would routinely send me out on service calls and I would come back with radios because once I reached the wall of my experience, I had no choice but to bring the radio back to more qualified people to service.

They could have sent a more qualified service person to the field... but they rarely did UNLESS it was a known worse problem going in... they generally tried handling it like modern tiered phone technical support... send me out first, hope I could fix it, then deal with the fallout if I couldn't.

But to the customer... who didn't know this was what was happening... I was the same as any other service guy they might send.

Buckyrig
06-25-2015, 11:47 AM
I wouldn't call myself any kind of plumber... but consider... You call a plumber and describe your problem, they send out a guy who fixes it. Unbeknownst to you the guy they sent out can only fix a couple of kinds of problems. He is a beginner/novice and is learning on the job... What's the difference between he and you IF you also could fix a couple of kinds of problems?

A litany of legal liabilities.

An apprentice (which would be your beginner) needs to work for a master plumber in most places. And said master plumber will be licensed and bonded.

I used to work for a company contracted to pre-screen and test candidates for various trade licenses. Some places are looser than others, but yeah, you can't just call yourself a plumber.

Newt
06-25-2015, 01:22 PM
When did "illustrator" lose currency? I prefer it to describe what I, and many of you, do. It's more specific and less freighted with semantic baggage.

"Artist" is too all-encompassing to be useful as a description, especially now when it is used, unqualified, to refer to musicians, performance artists, and others having no connection to visual art. If you tell someone "I'm an artist," they know little more than they did before. It's as though someone asked you what you do for fun, and you told them you enjoy hobbies and entertainment.

Stewart Vernon
06-25-2015, 03:26 PM
A litany of legal liabilities.

An apprentice (which would be your beginner) needs to work for a master plumber in most places. And said master plumber will be licensed and bonded.

I used to work for a company contracted to pre-screen and test candidates for various trade licenses. Some places are looser than others, but yeah, you can't just call yourself a plumber.

I grant you that... I know some professions require certain licenses in order to practice them for hire in the US (and other countries)... so obviously when a license is require, an amateur can't just hang out a shingle and solicit for work.

But... ignoring that... in the case of a plumber... you can fix your own sink... you can fix your friend's sink... you can fix lots of people's sinks if you aren't doing it for hire.

So what's the difference between that and being an "official" plumber other than the license to practice as a business?

Newt
06-25-2015, 03:38 PM
The license does, or should, indicate a certain level of competence. No such accreditation is available for artists, of course, which is where the comparison derails. Any jerk with a pencil can claim he's an artist; any jerk with a wrench cannot call himself a plumber, nor any jerk with a scalpel a surgeon.

Stewart Vernon
06-25-2015, 05:03 PM
The license does, or should, indicate a certain level of competence. No such accreditation is available for artists, of course, which is where the comparison derails. Any jerk with a pencil can claim he's an artist; any jerk with a wrench cannot call himself a plumber, nor any jerk with a scalpel a surgeon.

Plumber is probably a bad example... but a plumber is basically a professional pipe-fixer, right? So anyone can be a pipe-fixer even if they aren't a plumber.

Anyone can be an artist, even if they aren't a professional one. There are levels of artistry... but that's where things get awkward.

Is DaVinci a better painter than Picasso because DaVinci's stuff looks more realistic? To some people that answer would be yes... but Picasso was expressing something differently and he appears to have accomplished what he meant to accomplish.

I like some art and don't like other... but the stuff I don't like doesn't cease to be art just because I don't like it.

About the only clear-case for saying something is "bad" is... the artist says "that's supposed to be a straight line" but it's a crooked line... so you can say in that case, it is bad art because it isn't what the artist meant to draw/express. Outside of that, if the creation expresses what the creator wanted to express... it's art, and he/she is an artist.

vartemis
06-25-2015, 05:06 PM
If you're going to get bent out of shape because of a label that someone else is attempting to put on you, you might as well quit now. Everyone tries to put things neatly in boxes, and everyone tries to differentiate themselves to make themselves look better. If you can't handle criticism, whether it's valid or not, you aren't going to make it very long in any creative field.

The best way to prove that these people don't know what they are talking about it to get back to the projects and produce work. Regardless of what both sides are saying, I can GUARANTEE the definition of an artist does not include "one who wastes time posting on message boards defending what they do instead of actually doing it."

Scribbly
06-25-2015, 09:22 PM
Ladies and gentleman, I introduce you all a young artist,
Walt Jacobs, 6 years old. Son of one of my wife's friends.(Currently 13 years old)

If this is not Art ,where Art is? IMHO.
Pure free expression from a child's mind.

"Anne Frank clapping while Captain America punches Hitler in the face."
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p214/yeyed/anacaptain_zpsgaam8opw.jpg

ponyrl
06-26-2015, 01:35 AM
I draw.

Or, I call myself a Commercial Illustrator-in-training. I've certificates, and had training in disciplines that fall into the category of illustrator-in-training; which encompasses graphic design, and web design for the modern era.

I do not call myself an artist, nor as time and knowledge increased and skills improved, would I ever call myself such. When I was younger, yeah, I had the rosy-colored glasses of an ARE-TEEST, but that was as a young person and the image projected by the artistic community encouraged such lofty ideals of a Bohemian lifestyle.

That's my beginning and end of the "what it means to be" argument.

I would let no one call me an artist because by my definition, I am not.

I draw, & paint sometimes.

juan.a.stewart
06-26-2015, 09:31 PM
(Picked up his mic to post in this thread once again)

Scribbs: To me yes that's art. Does he still draw?

Pony: Stop it... (Shaquille O'Neal voice) stop it. You are an artist, stop it. If it's what you do and it's your thing... (sounding like a redundant drunk)... *hiccup* stop it...

Yes... (falls on his head)

ponyrl
06-27-2015, 01:22 AM
I prefer illustrator.

"Artist" is too broad a definition and inhabits too many aspects of the creative process that being associated with would not fall under my purview.

Scribbly
06-27-2015, 09:38 AM
(Picked up his mic to post in this thread once again)

Scribbs: To me yes that's art. Does he still draw?

Pony: Stop it... (Shaquille O'Neal voice) stop it. You are an artist, stop it. If it's what you do and it's your thing... (sounding like a redundant drunk)... *hiccup* stop it...

Yes... (falls on his head)

No actually. He's focused in martial arts right now. But we never know. He may be working in something else tomorrow.
People can have the talent for doing everything.
We can draw, paint, sing and run amongst thousand things humans do in common everyday.
Everybody can sing, but from there to be called "singer" or singer artist is another story.

juan.a.stewart
06-27-2015, 11:01 AM
Thanks for the info Scribbly, I wanted to know if he was still drawing to see what else he's got.

Since you added all that extra content, just felt like contributing to your extra content... yeah we as human beings can do many things Scribbs, so true.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I used to do some martial arts, not really into it like before but I still love it and keep with the exercises of it, I'm really into strength training now. I only sing to my lady, I'm good at singing too though, but I'm no singer, so I know what you mean. I'm more of a poet, yeah I write poetry, yup. Folks like my poetry, I like them but they drive me crazy to be honest. If anything I'm more and artist either way. One thing I don't call myself is a comicbook artist, not yet at least :har:. I've did one peasant trash thing a long time ago, and that's how I ended up here with you kind folks. (I miss my early days here)

When folks ask me what kind of artist I am, I tell them I'm a visual artist. Illustrating stuff, drawing, graphic designing, blah, blah, blah, etc.
You know Scribbs? You dint ask me but I'll add this. It's a harsh world out there for most artists you know? Most people want stuff virtually free. You know, one guy told me once, "ya not an artist unless ya starving". Ha, Ha, starving artist.

I've been doing all kinds of art for a while now, and honestly sometimes I feel like is it even worth making a living out of art and I tell you Scribbs my man, first, do it because you love it, everything else comes second. Making a living out of it ain't so bad, especially if you can earn a living other ways as well.

(This was a deep rant from an artist that had to share what's on his mind after a long week)

My fault for all that extra content Scribbs.