[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.he>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
<i.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.</i>
For sure. I think he also worked like a bastard at his writing, didn't he?
<i>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.</i>
See, the fact that he worked so long at his craft - even if it was for commission - makes him an artist in my book (his later success aside.) What this also means is, though, that I have to look at someone who cranks out cynical shite for ad companies and admit, if he really applies himself to what he is doing for the love of what he's doing, that he's an artist.
morgan303 I've heard admire the work of people who do nothing but portraits of furries, even though it's the furthest thing from anything resembling her bag. But she can admit that some of those people are damn fine artists.
So if we're talking about being able to use the word 'artist' comfortably in this day and age, I still think that having respect for another's level of commitment and craft is a mighty fine benchmark for that.
<i>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>
My beef is about respect for what we do, and over the course of this coversation that's become blended with the use of a few key words (like 'artist'.) So to get it back to that, with regards to what you said above, the creation of ideas and images has become more of a job now, yeah. Definitely. And that's largely because every single artform we have has been bent to the service of the world's newest artform, and the only one the United States pioneered itself: advertising.
Most of it is by committee, yes. But look at how much love and attention the auteur gets: Tarantino, Jackson, Barney.
Maybe we are back where we started, with most of us being hack workers, while a few get to be rock stars.
You mentioned above that when you introduce yourself as a writer, you get asked 'have you been published?' I get that too. When I say 'yes', the next question is almost always 'Have any been made into movies?'
<i>Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.</i>
I wonder about that. I'm increasingly coming around to the idea of staying alive as a creator by constantly making right-hand turns. It ties back into that whole depth-via-contrast thing I keep banging on about. Warhol may be a good example of that. I'm all for doing something shocking, small- or large-scale, provided it's about something rather than just being about itself. If that makes sense.
It occurs to me that's kind-of a guerilla attitude, and if that's the case maybe it's better for us to be underestimated, discounted, invisible. I dunno, thinking out loud now.
<i>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...</i>
A conversation about this can be nifty, because it's pretty much unresolvable... although I can't help but feel there IS a really simple answer. I guess it's a half-sore point - the respect issue - because I'm tired of being patronised by white-collar halfwits. Although that has cut right back since I got published, which actually only pisses me off more.
Maybe I feel protective of the entire endeavour and watching people shortchange themselves gets my back up. Stuffed if I know, really.
Re: Arty types
For sure. I think he also worked like a bastard at his writing, didn't he?
<i>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.</i>
See, the fact that he worked so long at his craft - even if it was for commission - makes him an artist in my book (his later success aside.) What this also means is, though, that I have to look at someone who cranks out cynical shite for ad companies and admit, if he really applies himself to what he is doing for the love of what he's doing, that he's an artist.
morgan303 I've heard admire the work of people who do nothing but portraits of furries, even though it's the furthest thing from anything resembling her bag. But she can admit that some of those people are damn fine artists.
So if we're talking about being able to use the word 'artist' comfortably in this day and age, I still think that having respect for another's level of commitment and craft is a mighty fine benchmark for that.
<i>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>
My beef is about respect for what we do, and over the course of this coversation that's become blended with the use of a few key words (like 'artist'.) So to get it back to that, with regards to what you said above, the creation of ideas and images has become more of a job now, yeah. Definitely. And that's largely because every single artform we have has been bent to the service of the world's newest artform, and the only one the United States pioneered itself: advertising.
Most of it is by committee, yes. But look at how much love and attention the auteur gets: Tarantino, Jackson, Barney.
Maybe we are back where we started, with most of us being hack workers, while a few get to be rock stars.
You mentioned above that when you introduce yourself as a writer, you get asked 'have you been published?' I get that too. When I say 'yes', the next question is almost always 'Have any been made into movies?'
<i>Or Andy Warhol, who seemed almost pleased to keep himself uninformed about the art around him.</i>
I wonder about that. I'm increasingly coming around to the idea of staying alive as a creator by constantly making right-hand turns. It ties back into that whole depth-via-contrast thing I keep banging on about. Warhol may be a good example of that. I'm all for doing something shocking, small- or large-scale, provided it's about something rather than just being about itself. If that makes sense.
It occurs to me that's kind-of a guerilla attitude, and if that's the case maybe it's better for us to be underestimated, discounted, invisible. I dunno, thinking out loud now.
<i>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...</i>
A conversation about this can be nifty, because it's pretty much unresolvable... although I can't help but feel there IS a really simple answer. I guess it's a half-sore point - the respect issue - because I'm tired of being patronised by white-collar halfwits. Although that has cut right back since I got published, which actually only pisses me off more.
Maybe I feel protective of the entire endeavour and watching people shortchange themselves gets my back up. Stuffed if I know, really.