[SP] Artisans who actually ARE Artists?

[Jeffster]

I agree with you. The term "artist" has been thrown around way to loosely in recent years. I think it's time to restore the term to it's original meaning, i.e. those who paint and sculpt. Musicians aren't artists . They. are. musicians. Writers arent' artists. They are writers. Skateboarders aren't artists either, but they may be creative. Many people in many fields can certainly be thought of as being creative.

This whole topic is a pet peeve of mine. I am a REAL artist. I actually use paintbrushes, paint, and canvas.

OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM IN THE PRESENCE OF A REAL ARTIST. THIS IS SUCH AN HONOR. READING THIS FORUM IS NOW THAT MUCH MORE SPECIAL SINCE YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED US, O WIELDER OF THE PAINTBRUSH.

 

[Tiltyred]

I agree with you. The term "artist" has been thrown around way to loosely in recent years. I think it's time to restore the term to it's original meaning, i.e. those who paint and sculpt. Musicians aren't artists . They. are. musicians. Writers arent' artists. They are writers. Skateboarders aren't artists either, but they may be creative. Many people in many fields can certainly be thought of as being creative.

This whole topic is a pet peeve of mine. I am a REAL artist. I actually use paintbrushes, paint, and canvas.

I believe that makes you a painter.

 

[Intricate Mystic]

OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE I AM IN THE PRESENCE OF A REAL ARTIST. THIS IS SUCH AN HONOR. READING THIS FORUM IS NOW THAT MUCH MORE SPECIAL SINCE YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED US, O WIELDER OF THE PAINTBRUSH.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being arrogant.

I believe that makes you a painter.

Yes, that's what I have to tell people.... that I'm a painter (which is O.K.), because if I say I'm an artist, they don't know what that means. The term is used for so many things these days that it has kind of lost it's meaning, in my opinion.

 

[Bubbles]

I think you're using the word "artist" rather loosely. Of course everyone has a creative talent at something. I have a feeling the OP is referring things directly related to "the arts", generally being visual arts, literature, performance art & music. To call an athlete or politician an artist is somewhat demeaning to those skilled in THE arts. Why steal their thunder?

It was what I was intending, but I don't mind seeing other definitions of "Artist." It's interesting; words have different connotations to different people. I find it fascinating. *is a word nerd*

This whole topic is a pet peeve of mine. I am a REAL artist. I actually use paintbrushes, paint, and canvas.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that it bothered you. I was merely curious, is all. Personally, I think it's great that you can paint--some of us *cough ME cough* can't use paint to save their lives.

...Words don't lose meaning, you know. They evolve. That's how language works. It's constantly changing.

 

[riel]

I started drawing when I was 5 yrs. old with pencil and paper. I did my first watercolor in Grade 3 but hated the result(which discouraged me in dabbling with watercolor a while after that). In highschool, I drew and painted some of the things I see around me...there were both good and bad ones. In college now, I use ballpen and paper to draw graphic patterns and less with realistic drawing. I find that I can express myself more in drawing graphic patterns rather than copying something which I'm terrible at(asymmetric alignment, too big/too small for the paper, exhausting in the long run).

When doing scrapbooks about my life(some of our teachers delight in requiring it for their subjects), I usually use whatever art materials/materials are at hand. I don't like to spend much on scrapbooking materials which are pretty but are quite expensive. I just compensate by drawing a lot of graphic and colorful patterns and I was glad my scrapbooks turned out okay.

Even though I'm quite good in the fine arts(which the people around me encourage me to take a bachelor's degree for it but I don't want to), I'm poor when it comes to mixing and matching clothes and interior designing. My mom, who is an ISFJ, doesn't find it difficult to do such things and actually the results are visually appealing.

 

[riel]

Personally, I think it's great that you can paint--some of us *cough ME cough* can't use paint to save their lives.

We're pretty much on the same boat. My paintings would make everyone say, "Uhmm...". Overall, I'm really terrible in painting. I'm much more comfortable and better with graphic designing.

 

[OrangeAppled]

If by loosely, you mean awesomely, then yes, you're right.



Not all are in arts, though. That's why I think Keirsey's definition of art being "the next action is a free variable, rather than a fixed constant" is the best I've ever heard. A ton of people are better at those "fixed constants." It's the opposite of improvisation, and it can still be creative, yes, but creative is different than artistic.



"Fine" arts are indeed what a lot of people think of, but they are certainly not the only arts. Watch a martial artist in action for a time, or a blacksmith, or a skateboarder, and tell me they are not artists.



No, no it isn't in the slightest. What an absurd idea. It's the other way around. It's demeaning to single out only a few of the arts and make those out to be somehow more special.



Haha, you reminded me of that sketch from "The State", where they have the talk show with all the snooty "expert" people and the host asks all intense "What....is....art?" and one of the panelists shifts around in his chair for a long time looking like he's pondering it hard and then says "you mean like....paintings and stuff?"

No, a martial artist, blacksmith, and skateboarder are NOT artists.

Your definition of art is far more absurd as you basically apply it to anything YOU think is "awesome". Keirsey's definition is redefining the word to mean something it never has.

"The arts" are more than just fine arts (ie. visual arts may include film & fashion), and artists may include people who use related skills, such as in commercial artwork (ie. graphic arts).

So I'm not singling out "a few" arts, I'm calling out how ridiculous to say a skateboarder or politician is an artist. What isn't art then?
And why does something have to be an art to have meaning? It's not demeaning to these non-artists because their skill has value, even if it's not art.

I won't tell you who you remind me of, but it's certainly not someone bright or discerning.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

No, a martial artist, blacksmith, and skateboarder are NOT artists.

Your definition of art is far more absurd as you basically apply it to anything YOU think is "awesome". Keirsey's definition is redefining the word to mean something it never has.

"The arts" are more than just fine arts (ie. visual arts may include film & fashion), and artists may include people who use related skills, such as in commercial artwork (ie. graphic arts).

So I'm not singling out "a few" arts, I'm calling out how ridiculous to say a skateboarder or politician is an artist. What isn't art then?
And why does something have to be an art to have meaning? It's not demeaning to these non-artists because their skill has value, even if it's not art.

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

What is regarded as art is relevant to many factors like culture.. and is determined invidually through subjective evaulation. Going by those principles... art is subjective.. thus there is no point in defining the term art itself as if it was concrete fact... with directly definable criteria's, since it only needs a few loosely defined traits to pass(anything that can be practiced.. and honed by humans). Because it is ruled by the ambiguity of subjectiveness.

What you are doing is saying "look.. my definition of art is better then yours..." which is projecting and presenting your own subjective definition as one would of concrete fact..

Conclusion: Fallacy.

I won't tell you who you remind me of, but it's certainly not someone bright or discerning.

Translation "Dude you suck ass because your subjective opinion conflicts with mine.. whine whine whine"

 

[rooo]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being arrogant.



Yes, that's what I have to tell people.... that I'm a painter (which is O.K.), because if I say I'm an artist, they don't know what that means. The term is used for so many things these days that it has kind of lost it's meaning, in my opinion.

Yeah, you have to put "visual" before the "artist" part... even that seems to be too general these days. Usually I avoid labels and just say what it is that I do... "I paint, draw, sketch, etc." That's much more effective. Labels are only required by SJ's

 

[Jeffster]

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as being arrogant.

Nah, it's okay. It gave me somethin to respond to.

No, a martial artist, blacksmith, and skateboarder are NOT artists.

Sure they are.

Your definition of art is far more absurd as you basically apply it to anything YOU think is "awesome".

Not even close to true. A lot of art isn't awesome. For instance, there was that "pissing on Christ" sculpture (or maybe it was a painting) from several years ago that got a lot of attention. That wasn't awesome. There's all kinds of sucky music artists. Look at the stuff on the pop charts right now, most of it is terrible. I have doodled some stuff on post-it notes that was not very good at all. One time I was at this music store and heard this kid playing piano really lousily. I mean, he was just awful. Definitely not awesome. And man, have you seen some of the abominations in the comics section of the newspaper? I think a drunk dog could draw better than some of those people, but hey, they're still artists.

Keirsey's definition is redefining the word to mean something it never has.

Nope. Actually in many ways, Keirsey is remarkably unoriginal,. he consolidated a lot of old ideas, and his definitions of art actually line up with ancient guys like Plato and Aristotle. Just because you have learned or decided on a narrow definition doesn't mean others have.

"What isn't art then?

I already answered that in a previous post in this same topic. There are lots of other roles people fill that are not arts. Caretaking, inspecting, mentoring, enforcing, regulating, certifying, supplying, securing, solving equations...those are just a few examples of actions that are very important but not artistic.

I won't tell you who you remind me of, but it's certainly not someone bright or discerning.

Ooh. Can I guess then?

It is Shemp?

Uhhh...Tony Danza?

Fozzy Bear?

Theo from the Cosby Show?

Roger Rabbit?

Bill?

Ted?

The freckled-faced bully dude from King of the Hill?

Tommy from the Smothers Brothers?

The "GOOOOOOOOO RAIIIIIIIIIDERRRS" guy?

Adam Sandler's character in Airheads?

Bob Saget?

Yogi Berra?

The fat guy from Meatballs 4?

Shemp?

No wait, I said Shemp.

Oh well, I give up. I'm just gonna assume it was Shemp.

 

[maliafee]

:yim_rolling_on_the_

Ooh. Can I guess then?

It is Shemp?

Uhhh...Tony Danza?

Fozzy Bear?

Theo from the Cosby Show?

Roger Rabbit?

Bill?

Ted?

The freckled-faced bully dude from King of the Hill?

Tommy from the Smothers Brothers?

The "GOOOOOOOOO RAIIIIIIIIIDERRRS" guy?

Adam Sandler's character in Airheads?

Bob Saget?

Yogi Berra?

The fat guy from Meatballs 4?

Shemp?

No wait, I said Shemp.

Oh well, I give up. I'm just gonna assume it was Shemp.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

What is regarded as art is relevant to many factors like culture.. and is determined invidually through subjective evaulation. Going by those principles... art is subjective.. thus there is no point in defining the term art itself as if it was concrete fact... with directly definable criteria's, since it only needs a few loosely defined traits to pass(anything that can be practiced.. and honed by humans). Because it is ruled by the ambiguity of subjectiveness.

What you are doing is saying "look.. my definition of art is better then yours..." which is projecting and presenting your own subjective definition as one would of concrete fact..

Conclusion: Fallacy.



Translation "Dude you suck ass because your subjective opinion conflicts with mine.. whine whine whine"

Yes, art is subjective to a point, but if any individual can assert something as art, then the word has no meaning and is worthless. There is criteria that is NOT set by me which I briefly alluded to. That wikipedia article pretty much backs up what I said, which is not that there is a concrete set of standards, but a generally acknowledged areas of culture which fall under art.
Yes, people use expressions such as "the art of such & such" but that is idiomatic for the most part, simply meaning something requires special skill.
Not everything requiring special skill is art.

I would say you and "the jeffster" wannabe-comedian are the ones whining about your subjective views of art not being the set standard.

 

[OrangeAppled]

unnecessarily long post

Not funny, insightful, or making any valid point, as usual

 

[rooo]

I already answered that in a previous post in this same topic. There are lots of other roles people fill that are not arts. Caretaking, inspecting, mentoring, enforcing, regulating, certifying, supplying, securing, solving equations...those are just a few examples of actions that are very important but not artistic.

Couldn't any of these professions be considered an artform--where often you need to improvise due to unforeseen situations (aka being creative)--if we agree with your definition of "art"?

As I say, I don't really care... but credit should be due where it's due if we're going to be so loose with the artist term!

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

Yes, art is subjective to a point, but if any individual can assert something as art, then the word has no meaning and is worthless.

It is worthless as a defining term..

There is criteria that is NOT set by me which I briefly alluded to. That wikipedia article pretty much backs up what I said, which is not that there is a concrete set of standards, but a generally acknowledged areas of culture which fall under art.

That wikipedia article only state's that there is a cosensus of what is regarded as art around the world... with differing criteria's... it's not asserting that their is one definable or several criteria's. If you want to adhere to such cosensus .. it does not make you any less biased and subjective...

Do not go into a debate and present a standard with the basis of cosensus in subjective matters as if it was fact.

Yes, people use expressions such as "the art of such & such" but that is idiomatic for the most part, simply meaning something requires special skill.
Not everything requiring special skill is art.

They might aswell do it.. it doesn't make a diffrence. The term is so loose and ambigious.. it does not make a diffrence.

I would say you and "the jeffster" wannabe-comedian are the ones whining about your subjective views of art not being the set standard.

LOL.. following a cosensus does not make you any less subjective.. I can speak for myself that i am only in this argument for the sake of accord.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Comedian

 

[Jeffster]

Yes, art is subjective to a point, but if any individual can assert something as art, then the word has no meaning and is worthless. There is criteria that is NOT set by me which I briefly alluded to. That wikipedia article pretty much backs up what I said, which is not that there is a concrete set of standards, but a generally acknowledged areas of culture which fall under art.
Yes, people use expressions such as "the art of such & such" but that is idiomatic for the most part, simply meaning something requires special skill.
Not everything requiring special skill is art.

I would say you and "the jeffster" wannabe-comedian are the ones whining about your subjective views of art not being the set standard.

I wasn't whining at all. Just presenting a dissenting view.

Here's dictionary.com's entry on the word art:

art definition | Dictionary.com

As you can see, the more narrow definitions are present, but broader ones are certainly accepted by many people and not something I or Keirsey or anybody else just pulled out of their rear.

Not funny, insightful, or making any valid point, as usual

OH SNAP. You're kinda feisty, Orange. We need more of that here in the Arthouse. Too many topics are just like "OMG you SPs are so crazy!!" with the SPs responding "OMG we totally are! You wanna make out?" Which is cool and all, but it's good to have some variety, too.

Couldn't any of these professions be considered an artform--where often you need to improvise due to unforeseen situations (aka being creative)--if we agree with your definition of "art"?

Aha, but here we've hit on the crux* of the difference. There are many artists who are not professionals. I would say that there is a difference between the "profession of art" versus someone who is simply an artist as a hobby, or someone who may contribute something artistic occasionally in a job that it is not mainly involved with art.

If you ask somebody what they do for a living and their answer is "I'm an artist", then naturally you are going to think of someone who produces visual arts (or possibly music but usually people will say musician or "music artist" if they mean that.) I wasn't ever saying that this wouldn't be the default definition if someone classifies themself as an artist by profession, just that narrowly defining the word that way for any context is way too limiting to the many things that require the same basic skills and talents of creating something out of the tools and materials that one is provided.

* I'm not actually sure what crux means, but it seemed like it would sound cool there, so I put it.

 

[wolfy]

I have to say, some of the posts in this thread are pure artistry.