Hey all,
I have been in a discussion with a friend/colleague about the meaning of art and the limits of the usage of the term "art." He has pretty elitist views about it all, as he has said himself. I, on the other hand, have a much more liberal view of it all. Today, the argument got pretty heated, and I shot off an email in which, though I didn't know it at the time, I believe I wrote my credo. While it may or may not be of any interest to some of you, I thought I would share, as the discovery and writing of one's credo can be considered one of the most significant and poignant events in a person's life. So, here it is....my thoughts on being an artist.
I don't think that the loftiest goal is necessarily BEING an artist at
what I do. As a matter of fact, I don't consider myself a terribly creative
person. Sometimes, I think of myself as an artist. When I beleive I am an
artist, I sincerely believe I am making art. Other times, I look at what I
am doing and what I am and see nothing more than a skilled technician. Know what? after
years and years of being force-fed the idea that it is terrible to be a
technician, I came to terms with the reality that it DOESN'T BOTHER ME A BIT.
I don't know what to call myself, to tell you the truth. Like I said, I
don't consider myself a creative person. I have found many times that, while
I believe concept is EXTREMELY important in art, I create art by searching
for concepts worthy of spending my time creating them. If you look at that
one way, it sounds right, doesn't it?
But isn't it backwards? Isn't the "artist" supposed to have the idea and the
inspiration and then find the skills necessary to express the idea? I don't
work that way. I spend my time mired in the WORK of creating art, and
getting confident with my tools, and when I feel the urge to create, I simply
look for ideas that will stand strong enough to support MY WORK and keep
interest and showcase my craft. Is that wrong? No. Does it make me a
"Craftsman" and not and artist? Maybe. Sometimes. Do I care? Not a
bit. See, because when it all comes down, it is ALL the act of creation.
All of it takes an idea and makes it concrete. If the definition of the word
"Art" limits an "artist" to a workflow that BEGINS with meaning and ends with
execution, then "art" is a backwards idea for me. If, however, at the end of
the day, I am the only one who knows how "backward" my thinking is, and all
everyone around me sees is "great art," then maybe I AM an artist. The point
is, I care WHOLE-HEARTEDLY about what I
do. I am passionate about it, and I strive to be the best at it I can be.
What that something happens to be is what many people would call "art", and
so, to be poetic and classify it, I call myself an artist.
--But I don't tend to think in romantic terms about words and other man-made
classifications. I can see that some people are just as passionate about
doing their jobs as I am. They feel the same about fixing cars or sanding
bolwing lanes that I do about creating "art." So? Does that mean they are
artists? Of course not. Do they care? Of course not. SO the question
becomes: if they are as passionate as me about what they do, what makes my
work art and theirs not? To me, it is the fact that I BELIEVE it is art,
because I don't believe that what is right for one must be right for everyone
when it comes to the act of creation. Also, I am passionate about work that
I do in a creative field. So, what if my work, despite my feelings about it,
really ISN'T art.... What if, because of the way I look at things, I can't
be considered an artist? I would be a FOOL if I let it bother me one bit.
If I lost one minute of sleep over that possibility, I would be ashamed of
myself. Know why? In the end, what d
oes it matter? Why must being an "artist" be my loftiest goal? Only because
the term "art" has been reserved by a high-brow minority to define ONLY that
which is absolutely meaningful and inspired. What if I don't care about
that?In the end, whether or not I care about that, and whether or not I truly
believe I am making art, all I am in CONCRETE, DEFINED, REAL terms is a
nocturnal student bent on keeping a competitive edge and a fresh, innovative
view in a creative field and course of study. And when it all comes down,
all ANY notable artist was in concrete, defined, real terms was a normal
person with a daily routine and a passion for creating work in a creative
field. These men and women were not gods. They did exactly what you and I
do every day. --And they created work. Did they REALLY feel and accomplish
something I do not? I sincerely doubt it. The term "artist" has been
bestowed on them, some would say arbitrarily, to show approval for the work
they did.
So, what does it matter? That is the point at the root of what I consider
art. It is a vague term invented to give greater meaning to something that
may or may not have TRULY been important or relevant to the person making it.
When all the romanticism is broken down, and "art" and "artists" are seen
for what they truly are, and were, art is simply creative work made by people
who believed they were making something meaningful and worthwhile. --And,
so, by that, the only REAL definition of art, I consider myself an artist.
If I am wrong, then put a big red "X" on that question in the vocabulary test
of life. It won't bother me, and I am sure I will still make an "A" on my
final grade.
So, there it is. Any thoughts? Like I said, finding out the core of my beliefs will not change the way you conduct yourself at work tomorrow. It will not affect your choice of color when you are picking out that new car.... But is there something to be learned from it? Anyone see anything from a different perspective?
Ricky
DesignDawg
I have been in a discussion with a friend/colleague about the meaning of art and the limits of the usage of the term "art." He has pretty elitist views about it all, as he has said himself. I, on the other hand, have a much more liberal view of it all. Today, the argument got pretty heated, and I shot off an email in which, though I didn't know it at the time, I believe I wrote my credo. While it may or may not be of any interest to some of you, I thought I would share, as the discovery and writing of one's credo can be considered one of the most significant and poignant events in a person's life. So, here it is....my thoughts on being an artist.
I don't think that the loftiest goal is necessarily BEING an artist at
what I do. As a matter of fact, I don't consider myself a terribly creative
person. Sometimes, I think of myself as an artist. When I beleive I am an
artist, I sincerely believe I am making art. Other times, I look at what I
am doing and what I am and see nothing more than a skilled technician. Know what? after
years and years of being force-fed the idea that it is terrible to be a
technician, I came to terms with the reality that it DOESN'T BOTHER ME A BIT.
I don't know what to call myself, to tell you the truth. Like I said, I
don't consider myself a creative person. I have found many times that, while
I believe concept is EXTREMELY important in art, I create art by searching
for concepts worthy of spending my time creating them. If you look at that
one way, it sounds right, doesn't it?
But isn't it backwards? Isn't the "artist" supposed to have the idea and the
inspiration and then find the skills necessary to express the idea? I don't
work that way. I spend my time mired in the WORK of creating art, and
getting confident with my tools, and when I feel the urge to create, I simply
look for ideas that will stand strong enough to support MY WORK and keep
interest and showcase my craft. Is that wrong? No. Does it make me a
"Craftsman" and not and artist? Maybe. Sometimes. Do I care? Not a
bit. See, because when it all comes down, it is ALL the act of creation.
All of it takes an idea and makes it concrete. If the definition of the word
"Art" limits an "artist" to a workflow that BEGINS with meaning and ends with
execution, then "art" is a backwards idea for me. If, however, at the end of
the day, I am the only one who knows how "backward" my thinking is, and all
everyone around me sees is "great art," then maybe I AM an artist. The point
is, I care WHOLE-HEARTEDLY about what I
do. I am passionate about it, and I strive to be the best at it I can be.
What that something happens to be is what many people would call "art", and
so, to be poetic and classify it, I call myself an artist.
--But I don't tend to think in romantic terms about words and other man-made
classifications. I can see that some people are just as passionate about
doing their jobs as I am. They feel the same about fixing cars or sanding
bolwing lanes that I do about creating "art." So? Does that mean they are
artists? Of course not. Do they care? Of course not. SO the question
becomes: if they are as passionate as me about what they do, what makes my
work art and theirs not? To me, it is the fact that I BELIEVE it is art,
because I don't believe that what is right for one must be right for everyone
when it comes to the act of creation. Also, I am passionate about work that
I do in a creative field. So, what if my work, despite my feelings about it,
really ISN'T art.... What if, because of the way I look at things, I can't
be considered an artist? I would be a FOOL if I let it bother me one bit.
If I lost one minute of sleep over that possibility, I would be ashamed of
myself. Know why? In the end, what d
oes it matter? Why must being an "artist" be my loftiest goal? Only because
the term "art" has been reserved by a high-brow minority to define ONLY that
which is absolutely meaningful and inspired. What if I don't care about
that?In the end, whether or not I care about that, and whether or not I truly
believe I am making art, all I am in CONCRETE, DEFINED, REAL terms is a
nocturnal student bent on keeping a competitive edge and a fresh, innovative
view in a creative field and course of study. And when it all comes down,
all ANY notable artist was in concrete, defined, real terms was a normal
person with a daily routine and a passion for creating work in a creative
field. These men and women were not gods. They did exactly what you and I
do every day. --And they created work. Did they REALLY feel and accomplish
something I do not? I sincerely doubt it. The term "artist" has been
bestowed on them, some would say arbitrarily, to show approval for the work
they did.
So, what does it matter? That is the point at the root of what I consider
art. It is a vague term invented to give greater meaning to something that
may or may not have TRULY been important or relevant to the person making it.
When all the romanticism is broken down, and "art" and "artists" are seen
for what they truly are, and were, art is simply creative work made by people
who believed they were making something meaningful and worthwhile. --And,
so, by that, the only REAL definition of art, I consider myself an artist.
If I am wrong, then put a big red "X" on that question in the vocabulary test
of life. It won't bother me, and I am sure I will still make an "A" on my
final grade.
So, there it is. Any thoughts? Like I said, finding out the core of my beliefs will not change the way you conduct yourself at work tomorrow. It will not affect your choice of color when you are picking out that new car.... But is there something to be learned from it? Anyone see anything from a different perspective?
Ricky
DesignDawg
Facebook
Twitter