silly argument about art, from an email list

Hmmm...


My remark was only intended to point out that if it is permitted for
everyone who has interests outside their 9-to-5 employment to call
themselves an 'artist' because they can do a little dance, or sing a
song, or put some paint on canvas, etc, then you grossly devalue the
term 'artist'.


And it seems to me that if you restrict the concept of "artist" to people
who get paid for doing art, or spend the vast majority of their time doing
art, then you grossly devalue the artworks created by other people ... and
grossly overvalue the lousy artworks created by many art professionals ;-)

How about Henry Miller ... he wrote a lot of his stuff while working odd jobs
to pay the rent, had no professional training in writing, and his stuff was
roundly rejected as crap by the literary establishment of his time. Yet many
have greatly appreciated his work by now.

How about Vernor Vinge, who wrote most of his work during summers ...
i.e. outside his "9 to 5" employment as a math/CS professor. Did he somehow
become a greater artists when he retired to write full-time? He noted himself
that his productivity as a writer did not increase after he retired from his day
job.

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

How about Ramanujan, who proved great math theorems without any professional
training or contact with the international math community. Was he less of a
"real mathematician" than a salaried math prof with a PhD, even if the latter churned
out mediocre, useless theorems?

It seems to me, personally, there are two useful ways of judging a creator:

1) the actual qualities of the work produced

2) the psychology in the mind of the creator while they produce the work

Of course, both of these are hard to measure and define.

But both seem much more meaningful to me than judging a creator based on whether
they have a day job, or whether they earn a living from their creations. These other
factors you seem to favor, have a lot more to do with the creator's social context and
the non-creative-arts related aspects of the creator's personality, than with the artistic
creation itself.



If you wish to call virtually every human an 'artist', then certainly
you are allowed that usage, but it is a bit pointless, don't you
think?


Yes, that would be pointless.

There is a special psychology of serious artistic creation ... and there are
certainly some artistic works that seem to have more lasting appeal than
others.

However, I don't think this psychology, nor this lasting appeal, are as closely
tied to the daily-schedule, social-role or income-source of the creator as you
seem to think.




How about 'amateur artist' or 'novice artist' or 'wanna-be artist' or
'hobby artist', and so on? And save the 'professional artist' term for
those whose life is their art.


I don't intend any value judgment here. In my worthless artistic
opinion, some amateurs produce wonderful work and some professionals
produce rubbish. Art is one of those fields where judgment is very
subjective.


Yes, but IMO the error of your position is irrelevant to the fact that you're talking about
art.

Your criteria also rule as Ramanujan as a "real mathematician."

For that matter, they rule out nearly all the great scientists in history as "real scientists."

Because, science as an income source and/or professional job role is quite a new thing.

For instance, Leibniz earned his living largely researching family histories for
aristocrats. He did his science and math work mainly on the side. So, by your
analysis, he was an "amateur", as were essentially all his contemporary scientists
and mathematicians ... such as Isaac Newton....

I am not just harping on this because it's a pet peeve ;-) ... but also because it seems
relevant to the point of this thread.

The social roles played by artists, scientists and mathematicians have changed
drastically and frequently throughout history.

However, I claim that the **psychological process of creation** is intrinsic to human
psychology, and is mostly irrelevant to these shifting social roles.

As long as there are humans with mind-structure roughly similar to the current
mind-structure, a certain percentage of humans will become obsessively creative,
in the manner that "creative people" always have throughout history.

It's even possible that a greater percentage of people will become this way, if
someone develops a "creative inspiration" pill and it catches on ;-)

The profession of artist will die, along with all other professions, as scarcity
vanishes. Who cares? Who needs professions?