Fred Parker on thu 24 aug 06
I'll take it a step further: I fervently believe the only way an
individual can be rightfully designated "Artist" is by others, as in "He
is an Artist." That's not to say the word cannot be used in its lesser
form by the individual involved. "Signed by the artist" is, in my
opinion, completely acceptable in marketing one's work, but "signed by me,
and I am an artist," is pompous, overblown and annoying.
Fred Parker
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:49:57 -0400, clennell wrote:
>
>EP: Thanks for dubbing me Master Potter but once again I'm going to turn
it
>down. It sticks in my craw like calling Joe Blow, DR. Joe Blow does yours.
>We have a bunch of self proclaimed Ceramic Masters in Canada that pay a
>membership and get to put CM after their name, the same group nominates
>each other to receive another little title called
Vince Pitelka on thu 24 aug 06
Fred Parker wrote:
> I'll take it a step further: I fervently believe the only way an
> individual can be rightfully designated "Artist" is by others, as in "He
> is an Artist." That's not to say the word cannot be used in its lesser
> form by the individual involved. "Signed by the artist" is, in my
> opinion, completely acceptable in marketing one's work, but "signed by me,
> and I am an artist," is pompous, overblown and annoying.
Dear Fred,
Unfortunately, the above paragraph is typical of the attitude so many people
have towards the term "artist," and it is so inappropriate and inaccurate.
There is nothing pompous or arrogant about claiming to be an artist as long
as you do not act pompous and arrogant in making the claim. Anyone who
makes art is an artist, plain and simple. It doesn't imply that what they
make is good or great art, but then, that would be a subjective judgement
anyway. If someone who makes art is not an artist, then what are they?
What do we call them?
I taught art history and art appreciation for three years earlier in my
career. I've spent a great deal of time thinking about these issues, and
have written about them many times before on Clayart. There is a tremendous
amount of misunderstanding about art-making and the term "artist." All
young children are natural artists - they make art naturally and
spontaneously, but their intuitive approach is to interpret their experience
and surroundings with abstraction and symbolism. Most children would
continue to make art as they grow older (as they do in many East Asian and
tribal cultures), but unfortunately, well-meaning but misguided parents,
teachers, and peers so often give them the idea that realism is the only
valid kind of art, and that there is no point in pursuing art unless you can
create realistic images. So, if a kid is not inclined to or unable to
create realistic imagery, he or she gives up the whole notion of making art.
In a more informed and productive approach, all children are encouraged to
think of themselves as artists, and to abstract their surroundings in their
artwork. Later, they may choose to make realistic art, and that is a valid
choice, but certainly not the only one.
Of course it is important for us to identify good and great art, and to
celebrate the few people who are good or great artists, but at the same
time, every single person should be encouraged to make art - to use visual
art as a means of expression and communication. It is so healthy and
effective - so good for the indivudal and the society. If everyone made art
as a widely accepted form of expression, it would greatly increase the
overall level of quality of art being produced, and it would greatly
increase the general appreciation for and knowledge of good and great art.
What a society that would be!
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Fred Parker on fri 25 aug 06
Dear Vince:
Thanks for taking the time to express this argument. I have made it many
times -- when I taught at an arts center where most of my students were
frustrated cubicle-detainees by day, desperate for some way to express
themselves without aggravating their supervisor. I had many, MANY
students who began the course by telling me something like, "I'm really
not creative -- I'm an engineer..." CLearly, for decades they had been
told that engineers are not creative like artists. Time and time again, I
insisted that we are all creative, with every right to express ourselves
however we please (with certain bounds), and to do so without giving one
rat's ass about anyone else's opinion of our work -- including so-
called "art critics."
I fervently believe this, and have for many years.
However, I would not go so far as to say each of my students was
an "artist." Sad to say, some of them had it right in the first place
when they told me there was nothing creative about them.
In fact, I do place a value within the term, "art." I realize this is not
in keeping with everyone's opinion about art. And in these pc days
of "everybody wins a medal because there are no losers" it is stylish to
call anyone with a paint brush, a potter's wheel or a sketch pad an
artist, but I simply do not believe an Elvis painting on black velour is
art. Decoration maybe. "A picture" maybe. Crap probably. But, in my
opinion, it is definitely not art. I'd be hard pressed to designate the
painter of something like this, an "artist."
I guess what really bugs me about this "everybody is a winner" way of
thinking is the degree to which it cheapens those who really ARE artists.
What about the few who actually do have something to say, and the skills
to say it via "art?" Are they to be grouped into the same corral with
everybody who watched a couple of episode of "How to Paint" on Public TV,
bought some brushes and paints and went to work making endless paintings
of distant mountains with clever jackrabbit forms in the snowy foreground?
Now I know somebody is gonna raise the name Howard Finster or another self-
taught, primitive artist. There's a big difference, not the least of
which is having something to say or an idea to convey. Individuals can
be "artists" wihout having ever been exposed to the helpful or harmful
influences of an art school's faculty.
Re the question, "If someone who makes art is not an artist, then what are
they? What do we call them?" I don't know...
Maybe "amateur?..." "hobbyist?..." "Hack?..." It depends.
In my opinion, an "artist" is much more than someone who uses art media.
It's a little like falling in love: you can't really say why, but you
certainly know when it happens. A one-night-stand that seems like a good
idea at one AM might not always be real "love." Ditto art.
Warm regards,
Fred Parker
P.S.
I agree with you totally re the mummifying effect of our educational
methods on children's artistic capabilities. It has sucked, and continues
to suck, the lifeblood from millions of young minds every day. Recently,
I had a conversation with an elementary school's administrator on this
topic. It's either far worse than either of us realize, or she was dumb
as a post...
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:42:55 -0500, Vince Pitelka
wrote:
>Fred Parker wrote:
>> I'll take it a step further: I fervently believe the only way an
>> individual can be rightfully designated "Artist" is by others, as in "He
>> is an Artist." That's not to say the word cannot be used in its lesser
>> form by the individual involved. "Signed by the artist" is, in my
>> opinion, completely acceptable in marketing one's work, but "signed by
me,
>> and I am an artist," is pompous, overblown and annoying.
>
>Dear Fred,
>Unfortunately, the above paragraph is typical of the attitude so many
people
>have towards the term "artist," and it is so inappropriate and inaccurate.
>There is nothing pompous or arrogant about claiming to be an artist as
long
>as you do not act pompous and arrogant in making the claim. Anyone who
>makes art is an artist, plain and simple. It doesn't imply that what they
>make is good or great art, but then, that would be a subjective judgement
>anyway. If someone who makes art is not an artist, then what are they?
>What do we call them?
Lee Love on fri 25 aug 06
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:42:55 -0500, Vince Pitelka
> wrote:
>
>
> >anyway. If someone who makes art is not an artist, then what are they?
> >What do we call them?
How about "someone who makes art."
Have you ever met anybody that liked the idea of being a potter or an
artist better than actually making the work?
The proof is in the pudding. If you are actually making the
work, what they call you don't matter. Unless you are only making it
to be called something.
--
Lee in Mashiko, Japan
http://potters.blogspot.com/
"Let the beauty we love be what we do." - Rumi
Snail Scott on fri 25 aug 06
At 08:59 AM 8/24/2006 -0400, Fred P. wrote:
>...I am an artist," is pompous, overblown and annoying...
Saying "I'm an artist" isn't a value
judgement, it's job description.
Like the practitioners of most jobs,
some are better at it than others.
-Snail
| |
|
