Fundementals of an Artist
Hello, everyone. Just wanted to make a quick blog because that's just what I like doing for some reason --writing and more writing.
Anyway, I wanted to take some time out to reflect what it means to be an artist in simple definitions that so many get wrong, and frankly are a bigger issue of general ignorance in the way people often discuss many topics all while mixing up the fundamentals.
This idea came to me while I was watching someone talk about photography and how having a camera does not always mean being a photographer.
A common straw man type of argument that people often displace their attention to by completely missing the point about what an artist is when you start comparing methods.
1. The artist is free
If I could explain the method drive behind an artist it would be one word "creativity."
In my own poems, I describe this using the term of freedom because in order to create art a person must first understand how to be "free" in order to express themselves outside the norm of whatever cultural human barrier they are living in.
This means free to sing when it's not popular to sing.
This means free to dance when it's not respected to stand out.
This meas free to write and draw when its not valued and simply seen as a "waste of time."
This means wanting to be an artist when its not valued as a "real job" (DESPITE THE FACT THAT SOCIETY STRIVES ON THE SLAVE LABOR OF AN ARTIST TO PIVOT THEIR MARKETING SURVIVAL).
2. The tools of an artist
Going back to the point about the photographer. It got me to stop and wonder why a "professional" and respected photographer is seen as an artist, while someone that simply uses a cheap phone isn't.
Is the artist defined in the camera budget? Of course not.
Is the artist defined in the years of experience? Of course not. Experience is simply in time allocated in practice.
Now, some say this experience is what defines a "real" artist. Someone that has had "practice" and has earned their "skills" can be classified as a valued artist.
And those traits are nice, but neither are what define an artist. In fact, they define more a professional than they do to label who is an artist in the crowd.
For the record, an artist is someone that WORKS creatively. It's the literal underdog of the movie. The stray among the professionals. The ratatouille in the kitchen of chefs. The artist is the one that does things differently. It's never about the "skills" and years of education, its about the way the artist can think outside the box.
Like, compare a professional painter that has years of art school education, has worked with the best teachers in the world, and is able to give the full historical context behind each and every work.
Place them in a room with an artist that has none of these things and let them work.
Notice now how "art" isn't a simple black and white definition. Sure the "professional" will have all the textbook checkmarks down and be seen as what society expects an "art" piece to be.
But the actual artist would have a completely different presentation.
Which is better? Well, that remains to be seen in a real world example. But does "better" actually play a role in either side when the outcome is what will matter most?
Some might say, the professional is better. You can't compare a professional to a random person that just made something on the fly!
Which I would refute saying, we're not comparing a professional vs an amateur. We're comparing a professional "artist" vs a non-traditional "artist." An unheard of artist. An unpopular artist. Whatever that you want to call this underdog.
To those I lost, its like saying "you can't compare a professional chef to a person that has never cooked in their life!" When the example I'm giving is more a professional "chef" vs an uneducated cook, like a mother and so forth. Both are cooks. Both are artist. That's what I'm saying. It's not one sided.
Compare this to music, like my favorite example with Mozart. I don't mean like prodigies are the example, but the "stranger" can often do things differently than a school of musicians. This habit of doing things differently IS what ultimately defines the good artist from the GREAT artist.
The good and standard teacher, vs the great and oh captain my captain teacher.
The same can be said of the artist. Between the professional writer, to the most creative story builders. The same with the traditional sheet pianist, to the improvisational by the ear artist.
The ones that draw within the lines, and the ones that draw outside.
3. The Professional is separate to The Artist
But, I'll stop here because I know I already lost a great many traditional people. So, I'll end by saying. Yes, you can be a professional in how you work, but skill and experience DOES NOT mean you are also an artist. Or that is the ONLY way to be seen as a real artist.
I always say that skill and practice come with time. As all things do. It's good to know your history, your profound knowledge about the arts, and the traits that have been passed down. But none of that actually define who is a a "real artist."
In the same sense, a photographer that has a higher budget camera, with textbook definition shots of black and white so forth, IS NEVER a guarantee that they are the ONLY artist when its been proven that the TOOLS never make the artist, but the person behind those tools.
Some consider this as the artist, but for the wrong reasons. Like, they are an "artist" because they already have a life time of education and skills that the tools don't matter.
But again, that is ONLY viewing the "artist" here as someone that has an educational background. In reality, the artist neither needs an extensive education nor a higher budget camera, though they might help out. They simply need a camera. Any would do. In order to create art as a photographer.
That's because the "artist" that so many fixate on as this professional and skilled player
is just the same if that "artist" lacked any of the traits and still produced a great piece of art through their originality, their creativity, and their sometimes underdog approach of doing remarkable things on weaker access to tools.
In fact, you see this a lot with street artists. Whether its a musician, a painter, etc. Notice how many cases of street artists lack any sociably accepted trait, but still produce great art.
It's almost as if the artist is the person, and not the tools.
That person isn't always the professional, but according to society, the professional IS THE ONLY one defined as an artist. Which is sad.
In a more romantic definition, this pretty much reads as "the artist is in the heart, and not the person." Like you can be a professional, without a soul. And you can be a novice, unheard of, random person with a paintbrush, or a pen, or a cardboard guitar, and HAVE a soul.
