No Such Thing As A "Non Artist"
Edward Winkleman has an interesting post on his blog "What Makes Someone "Not an Artist?”. For myself the answer is very simple. There is no such thing as a "non artist". Here's a quote from his site.
"We have degrees and exams to define doctors or lawyers or scientists and such, but even armed with an MFA, a graduate seemingly still needs to pass some unspoken test to earn the title "artist" for most people. And of course, there's no requirement that one has an art degree to earn the title if the evidence (their art) is convincing enough. We would never let a self‑taught "surgeon" demonstrate their right to that title (at least, not on us) or a self‑declared "lawyer" try an important case for us, no matter how many episodes of "Law & Order" they convinced us were decided incorrectly. As a society, we have measures of competence for such professions we expect to be met.
This seems to be such a hard question to get a straight answer to. Occupations such as lawyers and doctors are highly specialized niches where as art is a universal human experience. Long before there were lawyers and doctors there were cave paintings in France and although the concept of "Art" may not have existed for the people who drew the pictures of animals and hunters on the cave walls who in our modern world would argue that it's not art.
One definition often used to define an Artist is the creation of some object or idea from scratch. What's often over looked here is that this creation is going on all the time all around us. All of human existence is an act of creation. We are born, experiences happen to use and over time we weave those experiences into a narrative that tells the stories which are our lives. These individual stories entwine to form communities and these communal stories entwine to form our collective history. All of human civilization is one big art project. It is such a universal experience that almost everyone thinks nothing of it. Even people who title themselves Artist may be blind to the fact that their everyday experiences are acts of artistic creation. The reason why it's so hard to define an Artist is because every human has a right to claim that title for themselves if they want it.
In today's culture a capital A "Artist" would usually be regarded as a specialist. They choose their materials, their mediums and their subjects. They develop their specialized symbolic vocabulary and hopefully their fellow human beings will place some value on their creations. With some luck these individual acts of creation will get added to the larger human art project of civilization.


Reader Comments (9)
The art world is indeed very protective of their system of degrees because everyone who went through that system paid some kind of price, even if we are just talking money. Yet we are rarely just talking money. That's why 'defense' of a thesis becomes so important in that system, because you'll be defending it all till the day you die.
and Eva you're right about the degree not meaning as much later on.
I turned that job down, just can't seem to tear myself away from Alaska...it's gotten into me bones.
:)
Hopefully I will make it down to Vancouver at some point in the future though.
What makes something a piece of art? I've tried for a definition and it can't be done because the thing that makes something art is an indefineable tiny something extra that we all recognise but can't put our finger on or quite describe. The difference between a nice looking image that's worth a glance and an image that continues to reward you, every time you look at it over the years, for its place on the wall.
But my prejudice of what's NOT art is that it's something lacking in craft, with little thought, is put together lazily, and is justified by a long winded highbrow explanation using as many big arty words as can be fitted in. A UK publication called Private Eye contains a regular piece called pseuds corner where they collect the worst of that sort of drivel.
And why is an art degree just a bit of paper not worth one breath defending? Because what you do is visible and should do all the talking for you. Getting the degree should have been the journey of gaining the skills and experience from those already travelled, and then you launch out on your own with that jump start. Your work speaks for you.
The downside is that the money making art establishment (and the education establishment protecting itself) won't bet on talent without a paper trail that re assures them that your art is indeed art - no matter how good it might be.
So I say; rock on 'amateur artists' - your work, when it's good, should be as worthy as the 'names' in the art world. And the sooner the art buying public wise up - and realise they can get great art from local artists without a stupid markup more than any professional should need to make a comfortable living.
Yes artists should be tradesman. Paid for the hours and materials they put in. That's how art should be paid for. And like any profession, the better you are the more your time is worth.
Alan
What happens a lot is people will defer judgement to an "Expert" and let them decide what art is for them. People have always let others decide what's important in their lives. Art is really no different.