These are good points all and I think we're all in agreement when we can all go boo-hiss to those stupid Romantics, alone and palely loitering.
Amateurism is a tricky thing and increasingly a blurred line but then again, it always was. Let's take, I dunno, Kafka. He worked the vast majority of his adult life in an insurance company. He only quit a few years before his death. I think it would be hard to argue that Kafka was in any way amateurish.
Or let's look at William Blake. The chap had only one showing in his lifetime and it got one review. 'An unfortunate lunatic' they called him. So much of what he did was for commission. Again, hard to dismiss his work.
Returning to the now... I think we're seeing artist returned to mainstream and away from that Romantic notion of artist as outsider. It's turning back into a job. Film, television, music, these are all art-by-committee. If not made plurally, at the very lease they can be dictated to by the Money. (Which is a return to a patronage kind of idea.) The artist is a job again. And so... the term "artist" is again devalued. Leaving us back ten comments ago. So, yeah... I'm a productive debater!
I think my real worry is that... none of us really has the right to say 'you're an artist' and 'you are not.' I can remember reading a biography of Mozart a few years back and the impression I got was that it was so easy for him. He only really started studying when his boss made him. (Please note, I'm claiming no expertise here. Just an impression.) He didn't work hard, just did his job, slept around and kept holding out for cash.
Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.
So yeah, I dunno. It's just a label. Just a title you can claim or not claim. I don't know what has the power to appoint it, either.
I'm feeling a tad unable to get my points across with this...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Arty types
Date: 2008-08-01 06:26 am (UTC)Amateurism is a tricky thing and increasingly a blurred line but then again, it always was. Let's take, I dunno, Kafka. He worked the vast majority of his adult life in an insurance company. He only quit a few years before his death. I think it would be hard to argue that Kafka was in any way amateurish.
Or let's look at William Blake. The chap had only one showing in his lifetime and it got one review. 'An unfortunate lunatic' they called him. So much of what he did was for commission. Again, hard to dismiss his work.
Returning to the now... I think we're seeing artist returned to mainstream and away from that Romantic notion of artist as outsider. It's turning back into a job. Film, television, music, these are all art-by-committee. If not made plurally, at the very lease they can be dictated to by the Money. (Which is a return to a patronage kind of idea.) The artist is a job again. And so... the term "artist" is again devalued. Leaving us back ten comments ago. So, yeah... I'm a productive debater!
I think my real worry is that... none of us really has the right to say 'you're an artist' and 'you are not.' I can remember reading a biography of Mozart a few years back and the impression I got was that it was so easy for him. He only really started studying when his boss made him. (Please note, I'm claiming no expertise here. Just an impression.) He didn't work hard, just did his job, slept around and kept holding out for cash.
Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.
So yeah, I dunno. It's just a label. Just a title you can claim or not claim. I don't know what has the power to appoint it, either.
I'm feeling a tad unable to get my points across with this...