Are You an Artist?

[mpbrockman]

To put it one last way: Yes, I Believe Even Billy Graham Is, In Some Sense, An Artist...

A bullshit artist.

This thread has gotten too fucking weird in the last few pages. I'm out.

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. -R. Dawkins

[Jeff]

To put it one last way: Yes, I Believe Even Billy Graham Is, In Some Sense, An Artist...

A bullshit artist.

This thread has gotten too fucking weird in the last few pages. I'm out.

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. -R. Dawkins

That sounds kind of harsh. I was only clarifying, because clearly I was not understood correctly. I don't think that my attempt at clarification indicates any danger of my brains dropping out.

[edit]

Also, Shakespeare said it better, more artfully, than I did. The point is, it can be humbling. And even enlightening. To remember. That things aren't just The Way Things Are. Things are the way we make them, out of our own crazy ideas. Every person is contributing some performance or creation. I don't think that notion is "too fucking weird." It's not the original topic of this thread, but I already said I wasn't talking about that. Here's Shakespeare saying what I mean:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms.
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lined,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


And if someone wants to consider themselves an artist, that's they're prerogative. They may do that. They may also not see themselves as an artist. I think that's all that matters, on the subject of this thread. Some people take issue with the concept or word "artist," and some people have broader definitions for it, while others have more strict definitions for it, and they are welcome to all of that as well. It's all fine. I believe I'm an artist, myself. I don't want a cookie for that title. It's just a title I'm comfortable with.

[dancrumb]

I've watched this thread with interest and discussed it with some close friends who work in theatre professionally. This point is not intended to somehow heighten the value of their perspective, beyond the fact that they are interested parties.

In particular, one friend, when asked if she was an artist, explained that part of the problem of self-defining as an artist is that it brings with it the burden of implications placed on that word by other people... people who would generally not call themselves and artist and who disdain the word and the title.

She drew a parallel with feminism. There are some women who, while subscribing to many of the tenets of feminism, choose not to identify themselves as feminists, because of negative connotations that others (or indeed, they) bring to that word.

(I hope this doesn't get derailed into a discussion of what feminism is or is not... it's just an example... socialism might just as easily have been used, but I'm trying to keep close to her points).

The other point that was made was that some people who worry about whether what they are doing is a legitimate form of art spend a lot of time defending what they are doing. This, unfortunately, can be a distraction. Those who are making the best quality art don't worry about others' opinions of whether they are making art. As a result, they tend to create things that are indisputably art.

Having thought long and hard about it, my goal is to simply focus on improv and be a creative and constructive force in every scene and show that I'm in. As I develop as an improviser and discover teammates who I work well with, I hope that, at some point, what I am doing, is consistently effective that audience members will leave my shows and continue to think about them for days and weeks to come. At that point, if asked, I might consider saying 'Yes' to the question 'Are you an artist?'

[sara farr]

I used to be a commercial artist -- meaning I get paid to bring others' visions to light -- which is an art in and of itself. I now enjoy teaching this, much more so than working at Mickey D's.

I also play with puppets.

[KathyRose]

I used to be a commercial artist -- meaning I get paid to bring others' visions to light -- which is an art in and of itself. I now enjoy teaching this, much more so than working at Mickey D's.

I also play with puppets.

In my book, you are a puppet performance artist! (And sound improviser artist as well.)

[Rev. Jordan T. Maxwell]

i think there's absolutely something to what Jeff is saying. you don't need to "pursue" art to make it, as it were. no, my sports car may not make me a race car driver, but i am a driver. i used to work as a carpenter, but don't consider myself one now. it doesn't negate that i ever was one, or that i may be again. if under these labels we are what we do, then an artist creates art. so the question becomes "what is art?" and if we could answer that definitively on an improv message board...well, then we'd all be smarter than every other human being on the planet for the last few thousand years.

and frankly i don't give a shit if everyone gets a blue ribbon for participation. in a world where people can't be bothered to even get off their ass and DO something, getting in the fucking arena to begin with is noble in and of itself. amen you get a ribbon for that.

By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out. -R. Dawkins

...and the argument falls apart for me there.

I used to be a commercial artist -- meaning I get paid to bring others' visions to light -- which is an art in and of itself. I now enjoy teaching this, much more so than working at Mickey D's.

I also play with puppets.

yeah, i always remind myself..."it's better than digging a ditch" (which i've also done. ).

[B. Tribe]

I suggested audience reception as a barometer for discerning "art" in improv (really, for any performance art) because WE DO SAY that "Art is in the eye of the beholder." That assumes there is someone who is beholding it. Audience members who come back time and again to see your work are indicating something positive about it. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that you perform in a way to curry audience favor, or that you rely entirely on others to tell you what constitutes "excellence" in your field.

What about a type of show that causes people to recoil in horror or become angry or so sad that they can't handle it and never want to see it again? Is it no longer art because it's not a positive experience?

I wrote/directed a play that polarized the audience. They loved it or hated it. Both responses were wonderful because none of them would forget the show.

[Marc Majcher]

Are we in Kindergarten?.

No, but we're not in high school, either.

Jeff and Jordan and Dan and Brett already said most of the rest of what I was going to say, so I won't repeat it, even though it probably bears repeating.

[Jastroch]

Dan Crumb is wise and everyone should listen to him.

[TexasImprovMassacre]

art should be less subjective, so we can know for sure what it is and what it isn't

[KathyRose]

I suggested audience reception as a barometer for discerning "art" in improv (really, for any performance art) because WE DO SAY that "Art is in the eye of the beholder." That assumes there is someone who is beholding it. Audience members who come back time and again to see your work are indicating something positive about it. I certainly didn't intend to suggest that you perform in a way to curry audience favor, or that you rely entirely on others to tell you what constitutes "excellence" in your field.

What about a type of show that causes people to recoil in horror or become angry or so sad that they can't handle it and never want to see it again? Is it no longer art because it's not a positive experience?

I wrote/directed a play that polarized the audience. They loved it or hated it. Both responses were wonderful because none of them would forget the show.

I said "positive" because improv thrives on repeat business. A play is certainly performance art, no matter what affect you intend it to have on your audience. Even revulsion.

[KathyRose]

art should be less subjective, so we can know for sure what it is and what it isn't

Yes, and art should be less subjunctive, so we can know for sure how to feel about it.
Down with free thinking!

Note to Valerie: intended as humor.

[beardedlamb]

but why would you know you are something and deny that you are that thing when asked? you don't have to be vocal about being feminist, but if someone asks you, why would you lie or pile on qualifiers? sounds like you should maybe be something else.

crumb said
"The other point that was made was that some people who worry about whether what they are doing is a legitimate form of art spend a lot of time defending what they are doing. This, unfortunately, can be a distraction. Those who are making the best quality art don't worry about others' opinions of whether they are making art. As a result, they tend to create things that are indisputably art."

what? i spend almost no time proclaiming what i do is art (this post makes it about 2 minutes total in the last year) and it has not affected my art. this is a ridiculous claim.

[Marc Majcher]

I suggested audience reception as a barometer for discerning "art" in improv (really, for any performance art) because WE DO SAY that "Art is in the eye of the beholder." That assumes there is someone who is beholding it.

So, Henry Darger - not an artist?

[KathyRose]

I suggested audience reception as a barometer for discerning "art" in improv (really, for any performance art) because WE DO SAY that "Art is in the eye of the beholder." That assumes there is someone who is beholding it.

So, Henry Darger - not an artist?

Read my sentence: I was speaking of improv.