Just about any conversation where people want to understand each others comments reduces to defining terms. This happened again last night at a gallery talk when someone pointed out that art “collectors” is an intimidating reference, going on to query what makes a person who buys art an art collector?
I was surprised the word “collector” carries some connotation of status for some. To me anyone with disposable income who chooses to buy art, rather than some more frivolous [name your own indulgence] or practical-use object, like a dishwasher, is a collector.
Not so surprising is the attitude of some that “artist” connotes some high(er)-standing societal position. To me, being a visual artist has always felt like some kind of disability, an outsider’s position not often supported by society. For sure there are few corporate-type benefits in such a profession or possibility of health insurance coverage.
However, do not assume an artisan (maker of amazing objects, including bread) or craftsperson (another maker of amazing objects not usually edible) is anything less than (?) an “artist.” Many such people take umbrage.
Is this a continuation of the trend of people who used to haul garbage becoming waste disposal engineers? Or how office secretaries have disappeared in lieu of executive assistants?
To investigate what makes an “artist” further, I looked into perhaps the most egalitarian source available: Wikipedia. Everything I initially read changed again when the page was updated on 26 July 2016 at 12:43. Here are a few points from the 7/26/2016 Wikipedia discussion of ARTIST:
--In Italy during the Middle Ages (the divide between ancient and modern times) “artist” meant something like “craftsman,” a skilled worker.
--By the 15th c., and scholar/philosopher Leon Battista Alberti, the focus turned to the importance of intellectual skills of the artist over manual skills.
--The gap between fine and applied arts was fixed by the second half of the 16th c. in Europe.
--Today: “Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art.
An artist may also be defined unofficially as ‘a person who expresses him- or herself through a medium.’ The word is also used in a qualitative sense of, a person creative in, innovative in, or adapt at, an artistic practice.”
Wiki goes on to reference work by masterminds Elizabeth Lingo and Steven Tepper. They discuss art for art’s sake and the difference from commercial work. Lingo and Tepper conclude “this bifurcation between the commercial and the noncommercial, the excellent and the base, the elite and the popular, is increasingly breaking down.”
Somehow I keep thinking about dyeing lots of chicken feathers, using a glue stick to make a pink-feathered creature from a re-cycled plastic water bottle with ping pong balls for its mobility. That would express something. Is it art or an expression of too much idle time and desperation and glue sticks?
We won’t even go into curatists. (See “The Inexorable Rise of A Hybrid Creature Called the Curatist,” http://www.artlyst.com/articles/the-inexorable-rise-of-a-hybrid-creature-called-the-curatist if needed.)
However, if you want a contemporary definition of what is an artist Daniel Grant, Arts Writer in the Huffington-Post, does a fair exploration of what that is about. Grant begins with the premise that “An artist is someone who makes art.” See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-grant/how-do-you-define-artist_b_582329.html
And so the revolving topics of what is art, what defines an “artist,” how or does an art collector differ from someone who just buys art by what she/he likes, orbits us still. A decidedly human endeavor. Perhaps it can give us something worthwhile to think about and clarify, on a personal level, with the result being more illuminating than our current national political theater.
I was surprised the word “collector” carries some connotation of status for some. To me anyone with disposable income who chooses to buy art, rather than some more frivolous [name your own indulgence] or practical-use object, like a dishwasher, is a collector.
Not so surprising is the attitude of some that “artist” connotes some high(er)-standing societal position. To me, being a visual artist has always felt like some kind of disability, an outsider’s position not often supported by society. For sure there are few corporate-type benefits in such a profession or possibility of health insurance coverage.
However, do not assume an artisan (maker of amazing objects, including bread) or craftsperson (another maker of amazing objects not usually edible) is anything less than (?) an “artist.” Many such people take umbrage.
Is this a continuation of the trend of people who used to haul garbage becoming waste disposal engineers? Or how office secretaries have disappeared in lieu of executive assistants?
To investigate what makes an “artist” further, I looked into perhaps the most egalitarian source available: Wikipedia. Everything I initially read changed again when the page was updated on 26 July 2016 at 12:43. Here are a few points from the 7/26/2016 Wikipedia discussion of ARTIST:
--In Italy during the Middle Ages (the divide between ancient and modern times) “artist” meant something like “craftsman,” a skilled worker.
--By the 15th c., and scholar/philosopher Leon Battista Alberti, the focus turned to the importance of intellectual skills of the artist over manual skills.
--The gap between fine and applied arts was fixed by the second half of the 16th c. in Europe.
--Today: “Artist is a descriptive term applied to a person who engages in an activity deemed to be an art.
An artist may also be defined unofficially as ‘a person who expresses him- or herself through a medium.’ The word is also used in a qualitative sense of, a person creative in, innovative in, or adapt at, an artistic practice.”
Wiki goes on to reference work by masterminds Elizabeth Lingo and Steven Tepper. They discuss art for art’s sake and the difference from commercial work. Lingo and Tepper conclude “this bifurcation between the commercial and the noncommercial, the excellent and the base, the elite and the popular, is increasingly breaking down.”
Somehow I keep thinking about dyeing lots of chicken feathers, using a glue stick to make a pink-feathered creature from a re-cycled plastic water bottle with ping pong balls for its mobility. That would express something. Is it art or an expression of too much idle time and desperation and glue sticks?
We won’t even go into curatists. (See “The Inexorable Rise of A Hybrid Creature Called the Curatist,” http://www.artlyst.com/articles/the-inexorable-rise-of-a-hybrid-creature-called-the-curatist if needed.)
However, if you want a contemporary definition of what is an artist Daniel Grant, Arts Writer in the Huffington-Post, does a fair exploration of what that is about. Grant begins with the premise that “An artist is someone who makes art.” See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-grant/how-do-you-define-artist_b_582329.html
And so the revolving topics of what is art, what defines an “artist,” how or does an art collector differ from someone who just buys art by what she/he likes, orbits us still. A decidedly human endeavor. Perhaps it can give us something worthwhile to think about and clarify, on a personal level, with the result being more illuminating than our current national political theater.