RedBubble

Welcome to the Age of Expression!

Interesting look, and i thuroughly agree

interesting observation

this is so true

How very true Martin….....agree with all that you said…......and infact very well said.

relativity

but who are the critics really? a 4 yr old boy? a 50 yr young man? hmmmm

Art be found anywhere in life after you look at peoples creations long enough, it changes the way we understand reality on many levels, some is deep while some is fun. Sometimes I look at the natural world after doing pictures for many years and see new ways of looking at things, meanings.

Excellent words of truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ah yes, true indeed… we just have to live it… to do it and offer it as honestly as we can…

one person’s expression, everyone else’s interpretation…

Very insightful Martin.

Its art because I say it is.
(Duchamp.)

6point1 I think that is another dimension to the conversation. Who are the critics? And yes they aren’t just the art officials. Worth discussing.

Good point! “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

Amen, Brother Pilgrm. There have been plenty of times I have asked myself, “Who is the artist?” It is not always with a kindly thought, either. Sometimes it is ridiculous or embarrassing or just plain ugly…not art. Then something else comes along and the angels sing. I have always believed there can be art in the most simple of things from a neatly tended garden to the most famous paintings of all, the murals on the Sistine Chapel. If every piece of art was exactly the same as the last or the next, what a boring world that would be. But, when something is good you know it.

Martin, I recently attended an art (painting) exhibition in New South Wales where various mediums produced by artists around Australia were on display. In my mind the best piece was produced by a secondary school student. Did the piece gain an award amongst the multitude that were handed out? No. Go figure.

The age old argument about what is “art”. Like beauty it’s in the eye of the beholder.

I see a perceptual distinction in the term “being creative/artistic” and “being an artist” personally. I like that people are artistic and expressive, but there is a difference between being a hobby artist and a professional artist in my view. After study and hard knocks, it’s a little demeaning at times to see a person become an “artist” at whim (and I know that isn’t everyone) it’s all perceptual anyway. But… there is a lot to be said for the academia and ethics of art itself… just because you think you are an artist being creative, does that make you an artist… I mean, a golfer can play golf, but not be a pro… and there are so many incarnations of art and creativity that a well rounded “creative” can fit into any creative minded role… and be confident that they can make money doing art without needing to be the famous exhibiting art connoisseur…

Just throwing more thoughts out there of course… :-)

I understand what you’re saying. Interesting and valid point you are making. But when you say ‘There were no artists just the people making the works’ well this is where the whole idea of an ‘artist’ is introduced. Instead of referring to people as ‘the people making the works’, people, humans are referred to as ‘artists’. Just as one whose profession is to give legal advice is referred to as a ‘Lawyer’.

maybe being an artist should be means tested. If you earn too much you are no longer an artists…hehe!

I think everyone is an artist in their own right!

BRAVO MY FRIEND MARTIN !!!!!! CHAPEAU TO YOU .HATS OFF TO YOU ….... REGARDS, Andre Furlan

Well So hard Most i look at ar great Emily Winter.

How long is a piece of string?

Word games .. labels defined in terms of other labels, and communication made by relating in terms of similar, but not exactly similar, experiences…

Regardless, we ponder meanings and definitions.

Here is a recent one of mine: Art is where not everyone will ‘get it’.

For the most part, art critics could not create a piece of art if their lives depended on it. That is why they get paid to be critics.
Art is in the eye of the beholder in my opinion. A work of art will connect to the viewer of the art or not. If the connection is made/not made does not mean that the object is not art, or is art either.
In my mind, it is a completely subjective experience no matter how you machinate the intellect about it.
Children are the perfect example of proof of this. They are not concerning themselves with creating art, they are having fun creating.
We must find that child within ourselves for each act of creating we engage in.

lol@nofrillsart then I’d be a bloody Master! : ) I think the term artist is very subjective.. sometimes what I think is crap is considered art.. and sometimes what I feel is awe inspiring doesn’t get a mention.. but then I’m no art critic. If it touches someone…then it is art. Whether it is asthetically pleasing…well.. that’s a preference of mine. For me art stirs an emotion.. or is clever. Just a preference of mine. Each to his own. Wendy

I may not know art but I know what I like.

critics are wanna be frustrated artists/make your art/forget the critics/time will tell/after we are all dead and gone/and a person still has a piece of our work/ i think that would put us in the art club…..or not /do the work guys enjoy your self/ breath in life every day
and give thanks that you have the freedom of self expression….......rhett

the word artist means “a person who is skilled at something”. Everyone is skilled at something therefore everyone is a artist just because you are not a painter, sculptor, writer, photographer, actor or singer doesn’t mean you are not a artist you could be a con-artist, make-up and hair artist, bull-shit artist, builder, bricklayer, taxi driver or anything, everyone is a artist at somthing, i think finding what it is that you are skilled at is the hard part and most people, i guess never search and never find there real skill?????

so they sit backand criticise and label everything

potential is not the same as being,i choose to be an artist!

So then nothing is unacceptable on any grounds as long as some moron says “it’s art”... no I cannot accept that premise. :)

In this age, and sites like this, we can be the artists, curators, and public and we can preach our own theories of what is art.

As an artist and after years of study of Art at the University level I don’t feel the need for validation from critics.

To speak regarding Kathleen’s point….I think it is more a distinction between “gifted” and “talented”. Both can be formally trained, however, a true “Artist” is gifted from birth; therefore the true “Artist” can either be trained or not (ie:folk art). I believe people can be taught aesthetics. Giftedness is not teachable.
To speak regarding Dagger133’s point….I firmly believe you are right in saying this because ART can be made into such an elitist judgment that it instills fear in people to the point that they do not feel “qualified” to buy or even look at ART…..ART is for the beholder, the only qualifier should be knowing what you like. Yes, the trained eye can see certain details, but it is all about what MOVES you inside!

I think that art is all around us. I think that people who wouldn’t define themselves as artist can and do make art. I do believe that art or the label artist is one you have to own and want to own. I think it is more about owning a label you give yourself then it is about others labeling you an artist

it’s the only thing I remember from the one term of doing philosophy, during the Art Teachers’ Conversion Course, in the early 70s. If you put it is a desert, where theres nobody to see it, is it Art?
The naked truth, to me, is that, I had showered and bathed without cossies on, all my life. Nothing on but I only felt like I was a naturist, ( after discovering how nice it was, at the far end of Conjola Beach, where in the distance, I saw a couple strip off and dive in, and followed their example), when I joined the ANF Supporters Club and received a little membership card.
I felt like an artist, after I completed the first, real, traditional painting and produced a work of art, pleasing to others or not.
Doesn’t help your dilemma, but makes me feel good to tell. :)
Still, if I put wheels on a crate and call it a car. It doesn’t meet all criteria, I reckon.

An artist doesn’t do it because he wants to—he does it because he has to

‘we are all artists or at least have the potential be’ – perhaps is your chief and a very valid oint…to some, the intrinsic value can and will be argued – but is th first childlike grasping of a marker and a scribble not the most dear masterpiece to a mother’s heart?

“There were no artists just the people making the works” ..... so you like the curators who you say determine what is art, determine that the these people who created works to give meaning to their lives, are not artists ….... interesting …... do you have to think of yourself or label yourself an artist to be one?

To me anyone who can see can be an artist if he choses..as Pablo Picasso once said:
The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls.

Shouldn’t you folks all get back to your REAL jobs and stop surfing redbubble?
No, really.
I am an artist because I wish to express my views of the world through Photos.
I require that no other person believes I am an artist, however, if they do then I am flattered.

I hesitate to call myself an artist because some of the people who do describe themselves as artists are such poseurs.
I can produce art but so what. I don’t think that this is beyond the abilities of most people if they want to do it and work at it. People have a naturally yearning towards beauty and creating beautiful things. The nature and form of those things will be different for everyone. For some people it won’t be in anyway concrete so it won’t count as Art. However there is more beauty in one act of random kindness than in 1000 Guernicas.

Ever since the Renaissance ended and began the wave of artistic schools of thought, the definition of art and artists began changing.
The brush work changed from being unnoticeable to noticeable then to being big splotches with impressionism and then to Expressionism. Art is no longer something technical, but a means of expression and meaning.

But really, people take advantage of that. People who don’t create anything at all, call themselves artists simply because they thought.

Anyone could be called an artist, but not anyone could be actually BE one. It takes more than clicking that button or painting lines and swirls on a canvas. I believe in order to BE an artist, you must go through every art movement and be somewhat successful at it. You need to be great at one thing before you decide you want to change it. Picasso wasn’t born as an Abstract artist, he was a prodigy, able to paint and draw realistic forms and figures. It wasn’t until later did he begin expressing himself and bending the rules.

Yeah sure you painted something, but so did my 2 year old nephew.

It really is frustrating watching how ‘art’ is seen now-and who call themselves artists.

Martin…very well written and extremely thought provoking!

whoa.

as Keanu would say (and did)

“Even though they are such fantastical characters and situations, it’s still a man trying to figure it out. These motifs of messiahs and heroes and anti-heroes, these journeys are things that we deal with in our day to day.”

whoa

so deep. I thought about that a lot. good comment!

a most interesting topic, which keeps me and a few friends up late at night…
if a white board, unpainted is art and put in a gallery, or even a white board with a black dot, then surely anything can be… its all weird.. and what makes an artist vs a hobbyist?
ie – i used to paint lead models – i didnt consider myself an artist then, despite picking colours, textures etc…
most interesting..

A very good point, very well put !!!!!

I heard this same point raised last year with respect to art created by the inpatients of psychiatric hospitals. An exhibition had been curated of works created by inpatients (mostly during the seventies I think) as a part of their treatement a sort of art thereapy. At the time it was certainly not created as ‘art’. Just to bring the point home, the curator could only display works of those patients they were able to trackdown and get permission from because legally these ‘artworks’ are included in their medical records which of course you can’t go around publishing. So, what has changed that now it is possible for someone to say that these works are ‘art’ ? I thin the fluid and dynamic aspect of cultural readings is fascinating and also what maes human culture so strong and powerful. The ability to revisit and reinterpret human activities is one of the most exciting things about us!

Great discussion, and I apologise if someone has already made this point in a comment, I haven’t been able to read all of the comments.

MissMena, I do not believe that one should need to study every art form and and be “Successful” before one is considered an artist.
Who defines what is successful and is there a definitive list of art forms to cross off as we do them.i am sorry you are frustrated but I do not believe such a stringent qualification be placed upon calling yourself an artist.

lemme add something:
some might find my post harsh, but i strongly stand by my point of view.

I myself dislike using the term ‘artist’ because it is so warn out, that it feels foreign to me. I create, and i believe i have a talent-not because i think so but because others do. But if someone asked me what did for a living i wouldn’t say “I am an Artist”

We are all artists when you come down to it, but there is a line to draw between everyone artists and the what i call the other artists, who take in every concept of line, form, depth and so on to create a pleasing, or whatever feeling art piece that works. The ones who stand out from the crowd of ordinaries.

Outstanding article Martin,and just who made the judges? Lol job security?

are the critics artists as well? human as well?

are they then qualified to comment-or is it just another person opening their mouth, which may or may not be connected to their brain.

coppertrees -were we acting as one just then?!

It’s all in the eye of the beholder mate! I remember donkeys’ years ago we visited the Art Gallery in Wagga and came away totally confused because we had not understood one single painting. Give me the art we have on RB any day! Peter

Interesting thoughts. Long ago, I decided that what I really liked to do was just to make things. It didn’t matter much what medium I used. Until recently, I hadn’t thought of myself as an artist…..more as a crafts person.

Oh, please let’s keep the definition of art and artist more personal and out of the critics hands. It’s really up to the individual.

An unanswerable question , and just as difficult as Religion or even Politics an easier question will be Who …What… created the Universe ….??? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ’ ll supply the Aspirin !!!!

here here! i don’t believe art to be subjective. i know i have no right to say what is or isn’t art or who is or isn’t an artist and anyone that thinks they do have the right… well, who told them they’re a critic?

I take photographs to produce images which appeal to me. If others like them too they call me an artist, if others don’t like them they call me a time waster.

If lots of people like them I may get to be a successful artist.

Being an artist…well the thing is that we can make things that inspire us for whatever reason but it really is down to the person/s who look at what we have done to decide if it is art or not. Also there is always an audience for any and every type of work.
That is why Redbubble works so well. I can make something and there will always be a million interpretations of it. Art is for the masses and it is the freedom of expression.

Art is an expression, therefore it comes from inner self. I believe that all of us are born artist. We all have that gift but use and express differently.

it’s so easy to get mired down in the bog of labels

to me there’s you and me, and him and her and what they do don’t make them that which they are :o)

Oh my, that’s a little deep for first thing in the morning! I agree with you though, we are all artists…..this artist is now going to have her first cup of coffee!

I always figured Art was a journey that will take a lifetime, so calling myself an Artist would signify that the journey had been completed.

While what I produce along the way could be deemed as Art, I`m not sure if I`ll ever be comfortable with the term “Artist”

you see something that’s there you recreate it and mold it to how you see it doesnt mater how you do it you see things others just walk past and ignore and then you draw it paint it photograph its that That makes you an artist. The Question should be how can some one Who doesnt create be called a critic and how can they decide weather or not its art.

I agree Martin. I am very often intrigued by the differing opinions of what people think is “good”. For example a photograph that I may think is fairly ordinary, someone else will say how fantastic it is, and visa versa. I suppose in the scheme of things it is good that we have different tastes and opinions.

Hi dear Pilgrm

to answer your question:
But if I decide I am an artist does that mean I wasn’t one before or that you aren’t one?
I ‘d like you to tell you about a sentence that is written in Paris on a famous museum in front of the Eiffel Tower, If you want to see click here where millions of tourist make photos, of this tower and therefore they got this sentence in their back. As I like to observe each time I go there, nobody see nor read this sentence as it is written in french. So it says :

All human being creates as he breathes
The artist feel himself a creator
his action engage all his being
his well-liked pain reinforce him

Paul Valery

Most of the time, I come across people who think they can do what ever they want its gonna be call art, and nobody will have to say anything, some other write tons of things “especially on the web” as I can see here or elsewhere and it will be call Art. I don’t agree on 1 point. Art can’t be an online thing only. Something that you write and publish on virtual place, all this new digital documents that you can “upload”.

Art must get people a bit more “involved” in what they do and want to expose. I find that sometimes Art is an excuse to mediocrity and easiness.

Sorry I’m always long in my comments, and thanx for reading.

i am not the artist

I completely agree with you and have this debate with my husband ALL the time, I am always telling him that I believe we are ALL artists some merely undiscovered to themselves.

In order to answer the question who is an artist.
We should first answer the question what is art?
My answer: art is an object that has more meaning then it’s parts.
For example a painter uses colors and canvas and creates a painting.
The painting has more meaning then it’s parts.
One more example: a photographer uses light and objects and creates composition the result is an image that has more meaning then it’s parts.
A good artist is someone that gives something of himself on his work and by doing so he gives the viewer a new way to see things, a new meaning and makes him think.
An art work is always subject of interpretation and is depended on the culture.
Has history shows some art works that nobody wanted at the time are sold now in millions and are considered masterpieces.
So the ultimate test of an art work is the time test, if it is still considered good art after a long time.

Shaun the Sheep-’Still Life’ says it all…approx 4 mins long but worth it if you’re up for laugh re _art_view it here

To quote Sheila Hollingsworth on her card Pet Hates #72 (see 2 birds looking at 3 white splats on a canvas) Bird No 1: “It says the artist wanted to express the inherent tension between black and white – to move beyond the formal constraints of traditional linear constructs”. Bird No 2: “It just looks like birdshit to me!”

Art is just another form of expression. Its a way of communicating & sharing feelings. Its an everyday thing like talking. To separate it from other forms of expression & to set yourself up to say that you are an artist, as if you’re any different from anyone else seems really bizarre me. Your “case in point” of a curator deciding that an Aboriginal work was “art” seems even more bizarre. From what I can see Aboriginal culture incorporated artistic expression into everyday life without excluding anyone & lived their lives without excluding art, whether it was through song, dance or painting. Art & life, life & art intertwined. Our western art might be a little less pretentious & a lot more meaningful if we didn’t keep wanting to put it up on a pedestal & want awards & in-depth analysis all the time. The great thing about RedBubble is it allows anyone to express themselves. Whether they do it beautifully or badly, its still art.

Everyone can be everything. Artist, Scientist, Doctor, Plumber, it all just takes training and a desire to do it. Anyone with no desire to be an artist will never be one, no one without training (self taught or otherwise) will never be one. Becoming an artist takes a great deal more than thinking your one. It means convincing everyone else you are.

How true Samuel…and that’s the hard part!!

critics determin whats popular. sheep follow critics.

I think the term artist is still right and valid. It’s only overuse and misuse that have made it appear shoddy. I like Samuel Beckett’s words on what an artist is: “To be an artist is to fail, as no other dare fail…”.

Every human being with a right side to their brain (or any brain at all) has the potential to be an artist, It is how people use this ability, and how others perceive it. I have been to big Art exhibitions with so called famous works have been ranted and raved about, and personally I wouldn’t give them house room. I like something to look like, or at least resemble what it is. Some critics don’t seem to mind. (again a lot of it depends on whom you are not what talent you have) a perfect example is the Beetle Paul McCartney, he is not a good painter but people clamber to own one, because he painted it, not because it is good. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone beholds something differently, so perhaps he is a good painter. haha. Artists usually are sensitive souls and a bad revue can out them off forever, destroying their confidence in themselves, which is , in my eyes, a sin against them. I would say to everyone, Let Your Light shine!!!! What does it matter if no one else likes it, it is yours, you have created it, it is your baby, and you love it.

who is the artist? the artist has the desire to express, the critic needs the artist to express…..ritual

true
i agree completely
i’m not a lawyer i’m also not a jelly bean
but i think i might be an artist
if some-one had the time to look
xx

The value or art = the quantity of your response.

Oh my, does that mean I’m human?

excellent point of which I for one totally agree with

Well, this is just how I see it. “Artist” is a descriptive word. Like a teacher (and we are always doing that every moment we live.) That’s all. We live, we do as we can and because we hope someone may be lifted up just a little bit by what is said, or read, or drawn or painted. For instance I see my Dentist as an Artist, because he has the eyes to understand what I’m asking for, e.g., something aesthetic. The artistic energies of centuries leave us with wonder to this day. We are humbled, awed and become speechless - what a gift! And the more it shows the more it grows - like any seed planted. It’s just a label, and I for one, am careful to stay away from those; but it’s almost impossible in this day’s world to do so because you cannot sit down and fill out reams of paper (for a loan to buy a house or truck, a horse or a golden nugget) and bypass the OCCUPATION. We all fill out so many forms that we don’t even know who or what it is that we are or do. You begin a journey with one destination in mind, only to find you’ve missed an important junction and didn’t make the necessary turns, so you wind up in some place totally unexpected. (Frankly I kinda like being lost because then I see and experience things that the “new encounter” has brought me to. ) Goes back to being non-judgmental (though I don’t know that any human being can declare themselves free of that vice—certainly know I can’t).

oh boy, I certainly echo hilarys words and another point some-one mentioned to be an artist you have to be trained this i dont agree with my brother who sadly lost his sight was a remarkable pencil artist and yes an artist with no formal training just a god given gift . If you create and some-one else enjoys then use whatever label you want surely this is the main thing

I watched a Frank Hurley Documentary today where the critics and historians feel cheated because Frank manipulated his images to make them more interesting to the viewer. I believe the originals to be of great historical value but due to his passion for the photographic image I believe the manipulated prints to be art….but that is only my opinion. Like beauty, Art is in the eye of the beholder, I believe nature to be the Greatest Artist.

I see your point but there can be art in the creation of a tool.
Anything we find aesthetically pleasing to the eye is by definition art but not everyone has the same taste.
Aircraft to me can be beautiful as are cars. We tend to buy based on how beautiful or aesthetically pleasing we deem something to be regardless much of the time as to whether it has a real purpose.

very interesting word games…. anyway, i think different people have different views…. do you think so ?

I think perhpas the fundamental (mental) “problem” may go deeper and you have unwittingly touched onto a linguistic problem which in itself is the tip of a socio-psychologicial iceberg… in other words: it depends on what a person means by “art” and “artist”.

I actually disagree with the sttement that anyone is capable of being an artist. In my definition an artist is someone who can successfully tap into an inexpressable mood and render that visually in such a way that people are drawn to it with affinity.

I’d agree that anyone is capable of using artistic techniques to create… but may not ever be insightful enough to be an artist. Van Gough spent his whole lifetime out of sync, so it is never always that ovious.

And back to llinguistics. Even in the Art world the definition of the bounday between art and non-art is like a WW1 battlefield. Basically, divided between ‘design’ (functional and literal) and ‘art’ (non-functional and visceral). There is a certain amount of common sense in this outlook, it avoids the madness of describing everything creatd by a human as “art”.

The flipside is that many designers aren’t aware of the distinction and follow the common misconception of “art, great; design, inferior”... and worse still you have an ultra-obtuse challenge to such traditional definitions in the ‘Conceptual’ movement which churns out such unskilled crap as merely putting a urinal in a gallery or swinging a lightbulb as “art”- as typified by the Turner Prize.

Not all revolutions are good, in fact mostly teh have a track record of arriving right back at what they sought to destroy and Coneptual has done exactly that, it removed the defintion from the hands of bourgoise gallery owners turned it into something different and handed it back to the same bourgoise gallery owners.

And back to linguistics. Yes anyone can learn case law and process but willl that make them a lawyer? I think many of a lawyer who has had to jump over the increasingly high academic, professional, social (racial, geneder) hurdles would disagree.

But for arguments sake we’ll say they can, I should think again like art and even linguistics there will be a lively debate inside the group as to what it means to be within the group and who qualifies. In Art you have your design. In linguistics you have people acting more like mathematicians or some more like philosophers or more like archeologists.

Which brings us neatly to another point. The funny thing with prehistoric art, is that much of it may not be art at all, but rather more linguistic than artistic. If North American Indians and celts are anything to go by, there we would have an added dimension that the role would often be designated to some particular spiritual guru. If you shift the design argument out the way to include artisans you still end up with designated artisan roles fencing off much of output. This is perhaps inextricably linked with the social patterns of teh great apes that depend on social order for survival?

But one thing is for sure, the critics only have as much power as they are afforded. Galleries can only keep their doors open because people patronise them and financially support them.

Perhaps the problem is that the galleries, dealers and critics that are seen as opinion leaders represent a tiny minority of very rich (and tasteless) people rather than vast amount of other definitions that are out there.

And perhaps the reason for that can also be found in switching your television on and noting how frequently poor people worship that tiny minority of rich?

And if you are sick of the prevailing definitions, just remember van Gough who never really sold more than 1 painting in his lifetime… don’t follow him as an example an cut off half your ear and shoot yourself in teh groin. Do what he didn’t do and look for your own affinity group. We are everywhere and there has never been a better time to link up and bypass those stuck in the 19th Century!

:-)

I look at it this way a number one record like the birdie song that sells worldwide in it’s millions is as much art as a recording by Kiri Ti Kanawa that sells in it’s hundreds of thousands. If people get enjoyment out of it and someone CREATED it then it’s ART.

This got some comments going. I just have to add one myself. when you said…”Before that they were objects the community created to give meaning to their lives.”...Surely that is in itself a good description of art, so why make the distinction? Why should it bother you?
When you say…”And so being an artist is really little different than being human.” The difference is: mere survival is not enough…the artist focuses and intensifies the human experience and allows others to share that experience…believe it or not that requires skill, knowledge and sensitivity and is not some accidental surface stylisation or mimicry. So in this age of jokey sloganism and sloppy, lazy thinking the artist shouldn’t “dumb down” their role. Remember nothing comes from nothing…respect the skill of artists and their role.

You raise an interesting point Martin, one which I have pondered myself. I’ve been to galleries where the “art” has been an unmade bed or a collection of discarded wrappers displayed in a so-called “artistic way”. I myself couldn’t see the art but obviously someone else did…......hence it was displayed in a gallery.

The old catch cry of art being subjective is always attuned to trends….........sad but true.

As society progresses, so does the way we view the world and our aboriginal art is a good example. What was once an object created to signify personal meaning to a society or a personal cultural event suddenly becomes art when there is money involved for those who chose to exploit it (usually not the artist who created it in the first place).

I for one embrace all forms of art but I do have a personal preference as do most people. I dream of a time in our future when art becomes “free” for all to see regardless of race, socio-economic status or trends.

Let me clarify here…......when I say aboriginal art, I am talking about personal artifacts or objects created for cultural reasons, not the paintings. It saddens me to see some things exploited, especially when they hold such personal and cultural significance.

As we no!-Artists are more together and with it people than none artist, [realists], the title of artist is earnt through many years of dedication and discipline. Unless they are not a slave to other purposes they are truly not artists. The artist does not really no how or why they became so they just are and become seperate from the realities and constraints within commercialism, consumerism etc. The critic has no part in deciding if art is art or not, they only justify it’s existance as art to the public. The true and difficult conundrum is deciding what is good a what is bad art. Art must be deluded by other art.-1583 – Melbanke. Fuller 1732: I have heard scholars say, that it is art to conceal art.

hear hear
no one can say what is art for we all have our own ideas on the subject but if you find youur self thinkig am i an artist then just look at what you have created and the answer will come to you. but what you do with that answer is up to you cos no one can tell you how to be an artist not even yourself

Traditionally the term art was used to refer to any diverse skill or mastery which created something of interest or beauty, so in reality….....anything that you create through a human activity which stimulates the human senses could be thought of as art…..........

I kinda like that idea!

i second that Debra-Lee :D

I have to disagree with some critics, they who decide a pile of bricks dumped on the floor is art worth spending thousands on, they may already have done it, not sure, but I think with their warped view they would decide a pile of steaming horse manure was art! I think really it is a case that we do what pleases us, and hope we please others as well.

art is a

art is a passion that is creative,i believe if u create somthing that you consider to be artistic,well it is art, no matter how bad it is or unimaginative, u put ur effort and thought and time into it,it’s art, and i guarrentee that at least 1 person out of 6 billion on the planet will agree with you, and remember this critics are just people who can either agree or disagree with ur art based on wot knowledge or lack of knowledge they have of you and ur style of work, just the same as every human-therefore the secret is make everyone know who u are and wot ur stuf is about-no matter how bad it is…....keep ur passion make u and ur art known ,then ur an artist,no matter wot people think!
cause i tell ya there is sum artists out there who i could really question, but hey they r out there- so that’s who the artist is, it’s that person ,it’s you!

Does anyone actually buy “art” such as that which MayWebb and myself (with the unmade bed) have seen? Or do we tend to stick to the more “traditional” forms of art such as photography, classic sculpture or paintings? What shows in a gallery may be the current art trend, but do people actually buy these more “abstract” forms of art to display in their homes or commercial premises?

Just a question I’ve often wondered…........

I thought the tag of “Art” on this site was just a convenient lable, so that photos, drawings, altered images didn’t have to be split up under different banners. I feel that the tags art and artist is over-rated anyway, but then what do I know! I think Debra-Lee Sains sums it up very nicely. Me? I’m no artist. I prefer to say I am a photographer, but usually just say that where my photos are concerned I am obsessive. :)

LOL…....just realised that I swapped profiles to check my profile page and have commented under my “T shirt” persona instead of my Debra-lee. Duh….....

I agree. I wrote something slightly similar in my Bubble writing section a while ago, after reading a bit of Robert Henri’s “Art Spirit”. Question…do you think this Aboriginal exhibit will travel to DC? Thank you, Mech…

Hmm…....you’ve raised a very good point Kalaryder. An artist could be thought of anyone who creates something that raises the senses of the viewer, whether they be a painter, an illustrator, a carpenter, a photographer or even a chef who produces works of art with food.

My husband is a chef and although he has never advertised himself as such….....I consider him to be an artist because what he creates stimulates the senses, the visuals and the palate. For a brief moment in time…....

oh yeah call me wrong if u like, but a sucessful is someone who can still create wotever in wotever medium they want and enjoy doing it, and not care wot anyone thinks of it, u don’t have to sell anything to be sucessful, and i agree with maywebb about bricks and poo and the cash spent, but they are art done by artists pushing the boundries for that one person prepared to let go of their cash for poo!! lol

To get back to Martin’s original comment about artists….....especially about the potential to be one, who do we consider to be artists?

My brother is a carpenter who produces the most amazing carved wooden furniture. He would never consider himself an artist in the true sense but I think he is wrong. What he produces is art…....it takes skill and mastery to produce an object which stimulates the senses and gives a sense of joy and wonder. Same with a person who was a landscape gardener….....they use plants, soild and manipulate the landscape to produce something which is artistically pleasing to the eye and creates a sense of wonderment.

We are all artists to a certain degree…..........

Our lives are really our work of art, so in actual fact I think we are all creators of our own piece of art work, in one sense or another and it really doesn’t matter if someone else loves it or not because it is all a creation, an artistic revelation to be appreciated in some way or another and you as the artist deserve accolades for all of it!

Ooops….

To Bodymechanic…...I’ll tell you an interesting story. Years ago when we lived in Cairns our neighbor went to an art gallery and paid a few thousand dollars for a sculpture of rusted tin cans. He proudly showed us the next day and my husband said to him…....:”I could have put that together for you for nothing”.

The guys turned to my husband and said….......”Yes, you probably could have but you aren’t the artist. You wouldn’t have put it together with the same passion, the same foresight or the same idealist view of what you were trying to achieve”.

In other words….......what we see as a pile of tin cans may not be art to us, but to someone else it may represent a totally different view of the world, something deeper that only a certain select few can see.

I saw only a pile of tin cans, but obviously my neighbor saw something different and he was prepared to spend money to have that representation.

You’re right when you say art knows no medium…........enjoy what you do and chances are someone else will see what you see.

I know what you mean. I believe this is why many people and the HSC focus so much on the intention and influences on the work as well as its aesthetics in order to determine its overall ‘artness’ (for lack of a better word). Simply a ‘found object’ that has had no thought behind it when selected by the artist I believe does not classify as art. This is different to Duchamp’s brilliance in selecting items to convey a message, which has an intended purpose behind it.

Good Point, Well I’m just glad were all different..lol

Terry said, about 5 hours ago, “We must find that child within ourselves”. This says it all to me. Some days, when I am frantically busy, I find it difficult to be ‘inspired’ creatively – I am unable to find the child in myself. At other times, creativity flows freely and uncensored, and I am able to ‘see’ art around me and in the works of others.
A great inspirational ‘write’ Martin. Thanks. Keith

I think the distinction that most people haven’t made is that between taste and judgement. They’re not always the same thing. For instance, I like a lot of terrible music, but I still judge that the music is terrible. If a painting’s quality was judged on the basis of whether you would put it up on your wall, then most of us wouldn’t consider Michelangelo’s Last Judgement a great painting—after all, who wants a painting of people being tormented on their wall?

It’s perfectly fine to like a rubbish painting; after all, it does no one any harm, apart from slight offence to their eyes. But the true test of a painting being great (apart from the test of time, which takes rather too long), is its ability to make you return to it time and time again, and give you renewed pleasure every time. Sometimes you might hate the painting, but if it’s great, you will, if you have any sensitivity to art, return to it again. I’m not saying that it’s always easy to judge whether a painting is a great work of art, but just because it’s difficult, doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and we mustn’t take the lazy option of just saying that “it’s art if I say it is” or “it’s art if it makes someone happy”.

So: while it’s technically true that anyone can be called an artist if they just pick up a paintbrush and paint (or whatever else), that’s something akin to saying that someone is a scientist if they merely look under a microscope. There are gradations of artistry, and so not everyone truly deserves the title of “artist”.

Yes its true that anyone can decide they are a visual artist—really by just saying so. It may even be that they havn’t even started doing any art!! I think it is rather discriminatory as most people wouldn’t call themselves a musician until they were very proficient on an instrument or label themselves as an actor if their only acting experience was playing a dwarf in a primary school pantomine.
Maybe the Conceptualists are to blame!

A lawyer studies and gets apiece of paper in the end that declares he is so..
that applies to all professions, and they have the right to hang a shingle to tell the world, hence their clientel. An artist, photo or other, can do the same, and once his paperwork is completed (copyrite and business cards) he gets to hang his shingle.
Critics are every where, including doctors and lawyers, i’ve had a few bad ones of those. So in saying this….i can be an artist where i share my works , then i can be a professional artist when i have the paperwork to back me up and i can sell my works. I guess it all depends on how far you are willing to go with your talents.

I just do what I do.What people call it is entirely up to them.It’s not like I have a choice or anything.

I think we all are artist in some respect, we all have visions in our minds, its just some extend that vision into art of some sort. I see plenty of pictures in books, magazines etc. that are considered art and I think, “what makes that art?” It’s like you said, someone decided it was so now it is. But one mans interpretation of art means nothing to someone else. It’s all in the eyes of the artist and the beholder.
I call my work eric’s eyes because you are looking at what I see, my vision, whether you like it or not its still what I interpret as art or artsy, but I may be the only one who thinks so. Most of the work I think is so so, everyone here seems to really like, then some I think are great get minimal response, does that mean anything, no, it just means that we all like certain things and if the art looks like what we like then its art to us. If we aren’t interested in that particular subject then it’s not.

Think that’s what I was trying to say.

Donkeyhoot has said it all for me….all art is not good art and no amount of saying will make it so…I am sure all of the raucous young singers today think they’re artists, but no amount of saying so will turn any of them into a Renee Fleming….

My husband trained as a Psychologist, and when I am trying to get him to care regarding his diabetes, he reminds me that I am not a doctor! doesn’t that sound just like a man? I also believe three people can be viewing a piece of art and have three completely different interpretations. It depends on the viewer I guess, what appeals to them! A man who goes into a store and looks for a tie is artistic, he is choosing the colour and pattern he likes to go with his shirt, sometimes the choice isn’t all that good but he likes it so that is the enjoyment of our art to be content with what we have created. I also believe there is a lot of baloney out in the artworld and I see all of you have some good things to say. Thank you Martin.

Nice philosophic discussion :)

I agree with sweetscent62, that art stirs an emotion, and with many others that art is an expression.

I believe that art is a work that expresses some feelings, emotions, opinions etc, positive or negative – doesn’t matter; and (very important in my opinion): it has to be created with the goal to transfer (some) emotions to the viewer (maybe different ones than those of the author, that is not important). Also well expressed by Moshe Cohen earlier: art is an object that has more meaning then it’s parts.

According to you, who is an artist: a photographer making tens or hundreds passport photographs every day, or a photographer making now and then a very personal portrait expressing his/her love to his/her subject? Both of them can use the camera for sure…
According to you, who is an artist: a children-book illustrator striving for a smile of a child, or an illustrator who routinely makes perfect drawings of (say) machine parts to be produced? Both of them can use pen/pencil/mouse (or whatever else) for sure…

Contrary to MissMena, I don’t believe that in order to BE an artist, you must go through every art movement and be somewhat successful at it: there were enough people who are now considered as great masters who haven’t studied any arts, not speaking about great masters who died alone and hungry because nobody could understand their works (and just consequently, to buy them) at the time – they were surely not considered to be artists; only the time (and development of our cultures and perception) has changed it in some cases.
Instead, I believe that studying arts can help us (in some cases) to learn kind of a language that can make our works better understandable. Not that it would be a necessary condition: after all, you don’t need to understand words to understand a (good) song…

to thetatecreative: you wrote i don’t believe art to be subjective – don’t you? I do… Picasso, for example, is generally taken to be a great master. But most of his famous works simply don’t touch me at all… Why should I call it art?
Very well written by Crespuscular, too (earlier in this discussion) :)

to Debra-Lee: I don’t think that We are all artists to a certain degree… There are many people who actually hate to be creative, who hate to have to think too much and are only ready to do some routine work. Some of them are even among the best workers in their branch… They are very well in their work but I don’t think they could become artists…

Definitely, I’m glad to be a part of RB, because here I can find as much of art (or what art means to me!) as I want :) Keep posting your works!

I watched a TV Documentary and some monkeys were fighting over ownership of a useless torn bit of cloth.

Were the monkeys and the art is the bit of cloth. Anyone who can make the desirable thing the human monkey will fight to own is an artist.

I think I know what your talking about.when you say that art can only be defined by the artist,or by artists.I am in firm understanding that art is for everyone thus it exists as art in the minds eye of the person looking at it.Ive seen art drawn with chalks on street pavements and it only exist until it starts to rain,thats real art.

Yeah I hear ya.

I think anyone who creates is artist…. .from a child making the first painting for their parents .. an aboriginal who hasnt had any “training”, someone who has a gift to interpret the world as they see it ….we all have different tastes …I think most artists are the givers of the world ..they want to share their outlook …their dreams …spread happiness or awareness…being a professional artist with degrees does not make one a better artist ….it is the extent to which we can give of ourselves in our work .. ....some people are not capable of creating ..they follow blindly …I think artists are here to give beauty and meaning to the world

Before I started taking photography seriously, I would have said an artist is someone who draws or paints because they have a true talent and a photographer is someone who takes pictures because there is less skill involved. I now know that to be untrue. However, I would still never think of myself as an artist…. but do I deserve the right to be called a “Photographer”?

When I sold my first piece of work I know I FELT like a photographer and maybe the person who liked it enough to purchase it would have said that I was one, but what about the others that have looked at that same piece of work and said they didn’t like it, would they consider me a photographer?

To each individual I believe being an “Artist or Photographer” is a feeling within. To those looking at our creations, no matter what form, I believe it is whether they like it or not that they might consider us as artists or photographers.

We have a saying here in Nova Scotia that fits rather nicely “Whatever rocks your boat!”

Is some aboriginal art classed as pointillism? all art has it’s origins.

there are billions of artists because we all create in one way or the other. that’s the beauty of art, and when we create the world pays attention,and some of us accept the title artist, poet, writer, mother, dad we all create

An artist is a person who creates function-less objects for the sake of the process of creation (as opposed to a need for an object, or for profit).

I think art is nothing more than creative emotion put on display. Everyone is an artist, others just express themselves better than others. Things without emotion are just doodles and lines… that’s not art. But everyone has their own emotions and ways of expressing them. People that like others work really should ask themselves “is it because I like it, or because I can relate to it… I’ve been there before?”.

here here!

I also wanna add to my opinion of this whole topic and kinda in argument to some of yours… Some of you make it seem as though “art” has to be appealing to all its viewers (at least most of them). I work next door to a company that works with disabled young adults. I have become friends with a lot of them – some of them draw me pictures. I can tell you, they are in their mid-twenties and my 6 year old neice draws neater than they do. But my point is, they’re doing it for me. To make me happy. They put time and the best they can into it. They’re my artists and I think they’re beautiful. Yeah, they look like kid scribbles, but if you look closely at the stick figure’s head, it’s a perfect circle.

The mental creation and the creator!!!!!

I’m not an artist…But I play one on TV.

I really don’t care who is an artist and who isn’t. When I look at a painting that excites me, there aren’t any words or judgments happening. It’s a wordless appreciation. After all, if one were to start verbalizing it all, one might as well write a book instead of creating a visual image. Words detract from visual art.
That being said, it makes sense in a philosophical way that we are all artists. I tend to agree with you.

OOh that’s deep!
It depends on who I’m talking to.
If I’m talking to friends I say that I design cards and T-shirts for the web
If I’m talking to someone who used to know me when I was in school. (they weren’t kind to me in school) I say that I’m an International Best Selling Artist.
Well, it’s true… I’ve sold works all around the world on zazzle and Greetings Card Universe (so what if they are cards and T-shirts?) It’s still my work!
It may not be terribly arty but it makes people smile.

Anyone who creates something to me is an Artist. Including the head creator which is God. He gave us all a bit of himself to create in different ways.

How very true your words are Pilgrim…even a plumber is an artist…he knows the art of plumbing, a welder; of welding etc…I believe, everyone is an artist of some degree because we ALL have an input to the creation of this world in the way that it will be :)

if we left it up to the critics, then we would never have had Realism, Impressionism nor the Modern Age of art that would follow.

It is up to us as artists to not only create our separate works, but take control of the direction art is going.

Critics only know what they’ve been told.

Artists destroy and create “The Canon” all the time.

Comment is a comment; I now a Artist that created a masteries
And we have destroyed, ho cares, the art we created tried to solve
A problem in our society gets oss together and, wit the art have
Possible different but learn one of the other,
YES WHOS the ARTIS
…………………….angel

I have felt very similar for a long time. I feel Artist is an opinion. I cannot call myself an artist. I can call myself, Illustrator, Painter, Designer, but it is up to others to see what I do as art. Art can be a mastery of something, an object itself… it’s SO subjective. It can be used to describe practically anything we observe. I’ll leave the labeling to the masses.

Computerised stuff isnt art. The computer is the artist. Excessive photoshop ’’photograhers’’ are not artists….the computer is the artist. Shutter pushers and painters are artists.

English is one of those “tricky languages”
I like your take on the word artist, and agree…and for those who feel otherwise, please case and point:

art·ist Audio Help /ˈɑrtɪst/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahr-tist] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.
2. a person who practices one of the fine arts, esp. a painter or sculptor.
3. a person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.: a commercial artist.
4. a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer; a public performer: a mime artist; an artist of the dance.
5. a person whose work exhibits exceptional skill.
6. a person who is expert at trickery or deceit: He’s an artist with cards.
7. Obsolete. an artisan.

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-

[Origin: 1575–85; < MF artiste < ML artista master of arts. See art1, -ist]

—Synonyms 1. Artist, artisan are persons having superior skill or ability, or who are capable of producing superior work. An artist is a person engaged in some type of fine art. An artisan is engaged in a craft or applied art.

Definitions don’t mean much though. By that definition, who’s to say what’s to define superior? Are you to produce it or capture it? So many different aspects in the creative world, what’s to depict “Fine Art”? Really, who’s opinion do we trust to even determine what is classified as “art” and what is just stuff slapped together and declared a masterpiece? That’s why I stick to my thoughts that it depends on the emotion brought into it and correlated within it, whatever it may be.

A profound comment!

memac

For many of us Art is not something we create. Do you say you are a Breather? You Breathe, because you are alive. We create because we are alive.

For many of us Art is not something we create. Do you say you are a Breather? You Breathe, because you are alive. We create because we are alive.

I agree with what Melodious said “ah yes, true indeed… we just have to live it… to do it and offer it as honestly as we can…” And after an offering is made we must leave it up to the observer to determine, art or not. For us it’s simply something that we do.

wow long way down to add a comment, at the end of the day, there are alot of opportunists, a lot of fakes, a lot of wanna be’s, I think technique can be taught, and style can be copied, But, only true artists can recognize as if ‘one of their own’ in a piece, and we are only really impressed by comments of our art by one of our own or someone whom we see as more skilled then ourselves, it’s as if there is a silent code.

why? we all are critics as well. we should not give the professional critis the right to tell us whether we are artists or not. as long as we have a desire to express ourselves using brush, mouse, pen or tablet we all are artists.

Well put, as we all have the ability to create. peace…

Really good read,.)

As my mother used to say,there’s art in all nature. Art is in all of us,as part of our spirit.
We were created and we ourselves create. All we do can be art.

Some university students got a monkey to produce a “Work of Art”. They showed it to some art critics who ranted and raved about the expression of the artist and all sorts of usual things they come out with. They then showed it to a group of school children who said it look like something painted by a monkey. I rest my case.

thought provoking arguement…the art and artist can be one and the same and yet a piece that is an art stands alone. it is society (observer) that argues its merit. In the end, art is neither here nor there…it just is!

I am a mosaic artist and always evolving in the art itself. Some may like my art or hate it.
Anyone can do a mosaic but not everyone does it right and that doesn’t make you a mosaic artist. Art is discipline, fervor,continuity,and passion. Alot of times it is what the masses are in the mindframe for, if you want to sell. That is why there is always room for improving,evolving and being a little business savvy. Never compromise your art for anyone but try to be the best at it. Painting,sculptin,mosaics,mixed media,etc is all art if the person who does it is an artist. You have to live your art and have undying passion for it against ALL obstacles.

if it please’s the mind it is art if it please’s the heart it is art it’s very simple but us as human’s are inclined to take the crookedest path, is an instinct that keep’s us from the most direct path or easy solution so creativity can be a bleesing or just a ?.

who decides? just like here on the bubble we have people deciding who is good enough for thehome page, or avatars, or featured artists, or even who can be in a group or donate our “art” FOR A SPECIAL CAUSE. there is always someone to decide..not just the critics…I am my own critic and I decide if it is art, and it is…all of it…even if its garbage I can turn it into something beautiful…in my eyes and in my heart. I know where it started and how it finished..my art is my heart, and I personally believe that NO ONE CAN TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. I have been juried into a gallery in Sturgis…someone decided I was good enough. I am featured artist for the month of July and featured in the Art Bounce that same month….someone decided…IT WAS ME. Just because others don’t see the beauty in my work, the beauty in me, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

A true man never frets about his place in the world, but just slides into it by the gravitation of his nature, and swings there as easily as a star.
—Edward Chapin

I AM SWINGING ON A STAR AND ANYONE IS WELCOME TO JOIN ME…CELEBRATING LIFE, CELEBRATING LIVING IN THE MOMENT, AND CELEBRATING LOVE, FOR THIS IS WHAT IS MEANINGFUL.

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Get it out ith Optrex.

Sorry, Get it out WITH Optrex!

no matter how you debate it if you think some thing is art than it is art. the only art that ever really matters is the art that you like and no one eles. because we are all different we’ll all like different bits of certin art pieces and only we ourself decide wheather we see a piece of art or just some paint on a piece of paper

That’s precisely what Marcel Duchamp was saying with is ‘Readymades’.

his readymades

If you create something, that you have given a great deal of thought and emotion to and you have got an enormous amount of satisfaction, enjoyment and anticipation of how it will be recieved from it, then you have been artistic.
If it is loved by the masses, you are considered talented.
Critics are usually overpaid, outspoken and talentless ….....

To be honest I have a problem with the words art and artist. my buzz words are ‘creative work’ (all of the visual arts, drama, dance, writings, cookery, music etc …) and ‘creative soul’. It’s the blummin 21st century and the problem with art is that no one knows what it is yet. Even artists and art teachers. No one can agree either. The definition of art seems like the definition of druids to me “A druid is someone that says they are a druid… ...Unless the other druids say they’re not” This worries me because it is so importanat to be creative and ‘Art’ gives that creativity a bad name that confuses dudes and puts them off when they could be enjoying creativity and not feel overwhelmed with having to understand the meaning of every work of art they come across. I would love to see an aboriginal art exhibition. It must be magical.

There are no artist there is just ART and Art is love in the making. Therefore the person behind the canvas is a very passionate person. A priest if you will to show and tell about a work to be seen, expose, and criticize by others who think they can judge a work of Art. I am an art maker I have a passion for art I need to draw like I need to go to the bathroom. Making art is a need and a necessity for me I don’t care if it sells or others see it. “Art is love in the making”. Love is a private discipline, a master piece when you have a good eye a steady hand and imagination. “The Art of Love” by Erick From read it I highly recommend it.
for those who are passionately in love with art.

That is so right.

good point…what is or isnt art is very subjective. Myself, I never “decided” to be an artist…it is what ive done since my earliest memory…it is my love and my curse…regardless if i never make a cent or ever get recognized…i will continue to do what ive always done…make art

Asking a family-friend, who returned to The Hague, in the late sixties, to meet people, I know here, in Sydney, at an exhibition, in The Hague, got off on a bad start, and went down hill from there.
My Sydney acquaintance introduced herself with her name and the statement: I’m an artist.
Our family-friend, of many years (We migrated with her, her husband and daughter to Australia, in 1956. Shared houses for many years.) is a down-to-earth no nonsense lady.
The husband of the artist, called the exhibition B.S., possibly thinking that our friend had forgotten her english enough not to know what that meant. Not our friend. Some items that she was very proud of, were in the exhibition.
When recounting to me what had gone wrong, our family friend, put it in perspective by starting off by saying how the acquaintance had introduced herself.
Dis it imply, I’ve got talent and you haven’t ?

Did it imply: I’ve got talent and you haven’t? Why mention it??

I am an artist…

It has taken me forty seven years to be able to say those words and believe in what I am and what I do (although I do have many days where I still question the validity of what I do). What I create has beauty and meaning. I leave a part of me in every thing I create – be it a work on paper or canvas; a song; a chord of music; a story or poem; a photograph…

Maybe it only has meaning just for me, but isnt that the whole point?

I do this for myself…

Everyone’s an artist! :-)

I think everyone is an “artist”, I actually hate the term and only use it because it’s something people understand without having to get into a “deep and meaningful” conversation with them upon first meeting.

LA!

Everyone can express themselves and that expression can be art for someone, I just wish more people didn’t say “I’m not creative”, what’s THAT all about?

wow, that was a lot to read through. All I know is that I have about 100 paintings around my house and other places, if I’m not an artist then what am I? I also don’t even understand why I have the need to create a painting but I do. Its confusing to me sometimes but then I realize that I don’t have to understand everything!

art is the form we give life. critics are critics, nothing to say till they have seen something. we need each other to make art. and around and around we go.

thing is, just create it, leave the rest to others.

How ever you see it. ART speaks for itself. RB has amazing artists!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ars Artis Gratia!

Re:art created by monkeys. Have you seen the beautiful bowers that the bower bird creates ? Maybe all of us,including animals, have the creative spirit from the same
ultimate source.

My take on “art” is that is it is simply a created work that is asthetically pleasing. But then the question remains…. what is asthetically pleasing? And to whom? That’s just it. Like so many comments before me… it is in the eye of the beholder. If you or someone else created it and you think it is beautiful… call it “art.”

It has taken me a long time to realize that to call myself an artist is as easy as saying my name…I need no credentials to create – I need only to be thankful and enjoy the magic of it be it music, canvas or poetry…..if you can see – you can create, if you can hear – you can create….it is that simple to me.

I’ve explored this question by considering when does a photographer become an artist. A photographer is a technician, diarist or recorder until they impose their intent on their capture. In most landscape photography, mother nature is the artist. In an abstract cityscape often it is the architect or town planner who is the artist. In people photography, the model may be the artist – and some of the best people shots I’ve seen on red bubble are self portraits. There are levels of creativity in art, and it is the amount of creative thought and decision making that goes into the image that determines whether the creator is worthy of being called an artist.

I think anything is art which is made for that purpose (which admittedly makes ancient and tribal art a problem) and which is presented for aesthetic judgement (which can include said ancient and tribal art even if someone else presented them). If someone thinks they are an artist they probably are. Whether they are a good or bad artist is another issue and usually (but not always),resolved when their work is exhibited.

there are many levels of so called art and creativity just slot in where you feel happiest
do it for yourself and appreciate other people’s talent when you see something you like
personal choice …......... really

If I got this right, you are saying that somehow all people are artists, because all they make their works. The critics are the subjects, who decide which piece of work can be considered as art toward to the potential of the work to provoke interest in other people.
I totally agree with that.

I create to please ONLY myself.
If I don’t like it, I trash it.
If I like it, I keep it.
If you like it , I smile inside.

These are all our opinions of what is art and who is an artist. Although I’m not sure if everyone came in here with their own opinion and share it or if they read through other original thoughts and just agreed with different verbiage, I think we can all agree that art is our own expression and emotion… what we feel is right and suitable for our own judgment. We are harder on ourselves than anyone could ever be on us. Some say that you earn the title of Artist or that it’s given to you, or that you gave it to yourself. People have put work on here with the guidelines of “present your best” and it’s a great piece, but untitled. Who’s to say that the title wasn’t personal and the creator didn’t want to share it. If it’s from deep within you, what you love, than what difference does it make what others are calling it or you. You know what’s in it. If art is what you yourself thinks of your own doings in a complementive way, why do you need to have someone else verify your title? I sit in an office all day. People ask what I do, this is what I do. They’re asking the wrong question. Ask me what I have a passion for…

Personal emotion is the art that you don’t share. I have my photos on here. I’ve taken tons of pics and I am willing to share. On my gloomy and/or depressed days, I draw. The 1 person in my life that has seen them says they’re remarkable good. But for each one, I know what mood I was in and I know why. Those are my personal ones and they are not shared. But I still call them art and as their maker with all that went in them, for them, I was the artist. Not my profession, not my hobby, my venting source to let it all out.

It’s one of those questions without a definite answer. Actually, it’s gotten to the point of rediculous with the amount of pieces being called “art.” Some of which I’d have to call “trash.” I don’t understand how people come up with these things. I could paint a red square and call it art and people would love it. But that to me is absurb because a child could do the same. But nope. It’s “unworthy” in an art critic’s eyes because that “child” doesn’t understand the meaning behind the masterpiece. And an art critic does???

I don’t mind some of the old master paintings. Even the abtract paintings, you know, the ones that were first considered that way back when. I like to see new things. Not the same old thing drawn over and over again. Makes no sense to me.

Nice thoughts though. You’ve got a good point going.

This discussion is interesting but pointless. We have all kind od ideas here about ART and all kind points of view on the ART. But before starting a discussion we have to start with the definition, otherwise we will mean different things.
Here is the definition of art from Britannica:

art

also called visual art

A visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination.

The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation. The various visual arts exist within a continuum that ranges from purely aesthetic purposes at one end to purely utilitarian purposes at the other. This should by no means be taken as a rigid scheme, however, particularly in cultures in which everyday objects are painstakingly constructed and imbued with meaning. Particularly in the 20th century, debates arose over the definition of art. Figures such as Dada artist Marcel Duchamp implied that it is enough for an artist to deem something “art” and put it in a publicly accepted venue. Such intellectual experimentation continued throughout the 20th century in movements such as conceptual art and Minimalism. By the turn of the 21st century, a variety of new media (e.g., video art) further challenged traditional definitions of art. See aesthetics; art conservation and restoration; drawing; painting; printmaking; sculpture; photography; decorative arts.

Sorry for the long comment, I just wanted to simplify things a bit.

art is as we say, in the eyes of the beholder.

I like this one from nofrillsart
“maybe being an artist should be means tested. If you earn too much you are no longer an artists…hehe!”

Lol!

I believe that art is something that is expressed to the outside world,from the inner feelings of the creator.That it is portrayed by how that person was feeling, at that given time.Viewers will make decisions on that art by how they are feeling at the time. I have created art that I was quite proud of, then decided down the track that It totally sucked.I have also purchased art and later thought the same. Needless to say I don’t buy much or sell much LOL

whos the artist good question not me ,i know im human and iknow im a mechanic i see a camera as a tool iknow what i like i copy nature that .02 of a second of a lightning strike that dead tree that sunset that we look at every day but dont see nature is the artist the world around us if we stopped for a second and looked what can we see that building the arcitect the builder that garden the gardener the lines on an old mans face wheres he been whats he seen. dare too be different.we are all mad in our own way. if it puts a smile on your dile all good,if it dosent well still all good

I came, I thought, I have a headache!
I will read all the observations when i am NOT at work!!
Regards to the Mighty Bubble!

whoever says “everybody is an artist” is full of it…in my opinion anyways…its like saying everybody is an lawyer or an architect

not everyone is an artist .
i have been a stranger to the real world for all my life.
i see things and feel thing that people around me do not.
from my life in school to my life in aduldhood i am apart .
i have a gift .
anyone can draw or paint a picture,but to feel these thing
is not the same thing

artists are shamaen- we create unseen visions

YOU!

Tho nobody really cares… and I know they dont… I was born mildy autistic…. and tho I lead a realtively normal life now…. I still struggle with many social concepts… but what I DO know… is that I am an artist… I am creative… I am an individual with talent that is indigenous to WHOM I AM!
To quote an example… just recently… at 56 years of age… standing in the middle of the road… simply fascinated by the patterns in the road… the cracks… the ice.
I was both a critic… and an artist. I was a critic because I examined wht I perceived to be art… and artistic statement.
I was an artist because I wanted to memorize it… burn it into my mind… photograph it… paint it.
My artistic critique was interrupted by a police siren. Cops are not artists… nor are they art critics…. they are just critical… humorless… impatient.
Kinda like what we consider art critics.
My point… Art critics are artists too… they are for the most part tho… unappreciative….humorless… arrogant… and self genuflective…. ie extremely self centered. Art is all around us… either naturally… or by the artists hand and tools.
Art is art if it is a recording of an event …or a deliberately recreated action to present a vision.
Art … and artists are infinitive… the concept and teh creator are always there… there is no beginiing… no crossover… no end …as long as any living creature can see it.

SO who where you before your parents gave you a name? AND decided you were going to be Martin. Same question – different form :-)

We may all “have the potential to be artists” – but how many of us have spent half of our lives honing our craft?

As someone who has had ‘drawing better’ as a major focus of her life since the age of 14 or so, I find this sort of thing to be a bit insulting. Sure, everyone has the potential. Everyone also has the potential to be a leader, a programmer, a musician, a poet, a scientist… but what do you do with the potential? Do you care enough about one of those to study it, to practice it, to learn to tear your performances apart dispassionately, to build on your strengths and break down your weaknesses? Did you study it, did you find a working craftsperson willing to take you on as an apprentice and hand you ever-harder problems from the real world?

That is what makes you An Artist. Or A Lawyer. Or… whatever field you may love enough to specialize in. I have thought of myself as an artist (a cartoonist, to be precise) for something like twenty-five years, and I have spent much of my time in those years striving to do something better than my last piece. I still do. Saying that ‘everyone is an artist’ belittles the years I’ve spent doing this.

This posting reminded me of some thoughts I’d had a while back. One is that Art and the appreciation of art may be the single determining factor separating humanity from the “lower” animals. Those who might seem otherwise human who do not have these qualities and skills may not yet have reached sapiency.
I feel that all artifacts can be considered art to some degree, whether common items or sublime. There is a spectrum of quality to the scale of art as to all other things. It should be our goal if we are to consider ourselves to be artists to work towards the perfection of that art in all things, To endeavor towards a masterwork, and to realize that not every work will be exceptional.
While taking my college art history courses I had the conception that you can learn much about a society from the artworks they considered great. it tells us of the available materials, technology, philosophy, and often the politics of the time and place. Many societies we consider to be primitive have produced art of great complexity that would be difficult to produce today even with modern methods and tools.
Art will avail itself of all available technology, with the great art of the age using all the technology that is available. I would consider the large budget motion picture to be the great art form of our age.

ART is just another form of ones self expression.
some people see it and some don’t.
*Just do what your happy with *is what I say.

who’s the starving artist ? me….lol

The Art in indian context is a RASA created in observer by the artist who himself is SEARCHING the RASA and the Art work is his Journey. All arts are for experencing the ANANDA the Ultimate RASA ie BLISS.
shailendra Tiwari
Artist Bhopal
www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/s/shailendra

absolutely correct.

but, there is a difference between being a GOOD artist and being a BAD artist. i don’t care what people say, there is a huge difference.

they called the pantheon a great piece of art, but it was a building created for worship.

i think instead of saying “I am a great artist!” you should be saying “I am a great architect, or painter, or sculptor, or musician.” and so on.

I understand your concern for the status of artist. However, I do not follow you to the thought that being an artist is in any way diminished. I agree that any person who creates a work that is intended to affect another person can deserve the label of artist.

Your true concern, I suspect, is on what it means to be a great artist, an artist of talent, one who stood in the winds of time and did something new, unique, exotic. This individual has some other quality that affects the viewer deeply. This person is the sort of great artist that transcends an era, that is remembered.
Under that interpretation, the aboriginal artists you described do not qualify as great artists because we do not know their identity.

I give the moniker “artist” to anyone who creates well—even the craft maker qualifies. But when does the name change to great artist? At the moment when another person sees, or reads or hears the artist’s work and decides that it’s great. That is the moment. when a great artist is christened. The general public would probably only at that moment christen the craft maker an artist.

Too often, modern painters try to run down the buffet of art history, plucking this brush stroke, that splatter or careful tone. We know that imitation is how we begin but of course unless we leave the trail and cut our own trail, we will never endure past the moment when we each lay down somewhere with a final cough and release to the unknown. Our work remains behind and hopefully, survives somewhere in a museum.

You and I-friend-could have a canvas or two of ours hanging in a museum somewhere in the year 2208…

The bottom line… Art is in your heart….and soul

Art is the act of taking possession.

I’ve been off RedBubble for awhile but have returned to read the above whatever it is. It is the most riduclous load of nonsensical nonesense I’ve read in quite a while and just have to say so. It’s an attempt of someone to be profound!

When you create something out of nothing, you’re creating art! It doesn’t matter how others interpret it, that’s in the “eye of the beholder.” Art is the creation of something out of nothing. That nothing is where everything began. I’m not Zen, just sensible.

If writing garbage where there wasn’t any garbage before is art, you’re an artist, a BS one perhaps, but an artist all the same, takes all kinds. Sorry.

Angela
USA