The Value of a Title (It's Not A Hobby, It's A Life.)

[camrogers]

qamar posted recently on Creativity and Education, as a followup to a 20-minute talk by an academic from TED (which stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design.)

She opened with "All children are born artists. We don't grow into creativity, we're educated out of it." Which prompted a response by morgan303 in the comments and on her own journal - the full contents of which are behind the cut:


A wonderful friend of mine posted something very cool, but while I thought the crux of what she was getting at was one of those excellent things that the world should sit up and take notice of, I took issue with a single statement: "All children are born artists."

And I got that flash of something between anger and resignation that I get every time I hear that word abused.

It's a word that's thrown about like confetti these days and it makes me furious. And it's so deeply-ingrained in our culture now that everyone does it.

You draw furry porn? You're an artist. You have a DeviantArt account? You're an artist. You draw a bit as a hobby? You're an artist. You did some night classes in still-life? You're an artist.

Wrong.

You have a nice little hobby. An artist is someone who dedicates their life to their craft or who, at the very least has put enough study into it that they can say they are honestly educated (self or otherwise) enough to stand up and give themselves the title.

I do my tax every year; that doesn't make me an accountant. I cook dinner for me and patchworkkid; that doesn't make me a chef.

There is nothing in the least wrong, in fact there is everything right, with practicing art as a hobby. I'd encourage absolutely everyone to exercise their creativity to the utmost in a multitude of different ways. I spent a couple of very good years teaching drawing to people who'd never held a pencil. But it doesn't make you an artist.

I have made so many sacrifices for my profession. I scrape by to pay the rent, I spent most of my teenage years being ridiculed and even forbidden from following my career by one of my parents, I gave up a promising career as a classical singer, I spent years at uni soaking up as much information as I could and honing my skills, and most of my spare time practicing. I don't clock off at 5pm, I don't stop thinking about it and I struggle constantly to make something I think is worthy. So I really resent anyone who thinks they might like to have a little dabble being labelled an artist. It's a term that suffers so much abuse from both sides; either it's applied to hobbyists, or it's used to excuse or describe sets of negative behaviour ("artistic temperament" anyone?). You don't get this in "regular" professions; they're not cheapened like this.

When I say I'm an artist I do so with trepidation and a frisson of hesitant pride, because in doing so I apply to myself a title also held by some of the very greatest minds and talents in the history of humanity, and a collection of thoroughly extraordinary people - Duchamp, Barney, Burne-Jones, Vali Myers, Pollock, Malevich, Alma-Tadema, Da Vinci, and all the other names on that beautiful roll-call.

Thanks to the current usage of the word I'm also placing myself alongside any schmuck with a pencil and an internet connection. This also applies to writers, photographers, or pretty much anyone else working in the creative arts. Sure, it's muddy territory, it's subjective, poorly-defined, open to interpretation, and no-one in thousands of years of human history has yet managed to come up with an answer to the question "What is Art?" (it's up there with that other big one, "Is there a God?" and I can't help but suspect the two are inextricably linked).

But these are a collection of the most important professions we have. These are the people who make the culture that has defined civilisations. You don't have to have changed the world to qualify for the title, but at the very least you should have dedicated as much of your life to it as anyone else working in a professional field. It's bad enough that we barely get paid; having any dabbler claim the title you've paid for in blood, sweat and tears (literally on all counts in my case) is infuriating.


The word 'artist' (like the word 'hero' and a great many other things) has no currency any more, and we're poorer as a culture for that lack of respect. I don't say that because of how I make a living, I say it because it's obvious enough that I can draw you a flow chart on the subject.

A world in which nothing is respected means nothing is taboo.

A world in which nothing is taboo means it's a world in which nothing is sacred.

Living in a world without anything sacred means we never raise our heads.

All of which is an excuse for me to post this: the afterword to Christian Read's The Witch King, which I wrote back in 2005:

Nowadays the word ‘hero’ is practically devoid of meaning. You’re a hero if you save a baby from a burning building; you’re a hero if you get paid six figures to kick a ball in the right direction; you’re a hero if you accidentally leave the safety off your Steyr and wind up killing yourself and wounding two squadmates. Everyone’s a hero. The word has no worth.

The traditional comic book hero is designed to be your physical, intellectual and moral superior. A Fifties dad. A hair-ruffling G-man. A Bob Dobbs posterchild for steroids and conformity. A superman, for Christ’s sake. All buff, all male, all right, all the time. Hell, villains are more honest with themselves than that.

There’s something else heroes are: artefacts. Spandex-clad yes men were meant for an age when authority was to be trusted. Nowadays such notions become less relevant with each passing broadcast. Give me a King Mob, a John Constantine, a Gavriel, a Spider Jerusalem, a Bogart. Give me someone I’d be glad to buy a beer. Enough of the spin, the easy answers… enough of what we had last week, last month, last year.

People like that don’t walk a line between good and evil. They tourist on either side because they know that line doesn’t really exist. They are people like you and I, in extraordinary situations taking blows, making mistakes, living and dying and doing it with a style born of what I can only call honesty. They both succeed and fail, rise and fall. They are full of contrast, and therein lies their depth. When someone like that decides to do something you see the mechanism of that decision churning beneath their skin. They are real as you are real.

I believe the best anti-heroes know themselves, if only unconsciously. No matter how bad things get, no matter what or who they lose, they always have that one thing in themselves they can trust. Be it a black humour that sees them through, gleeful smarts or, as in Gavriel’s case, the quiet certainty that they have been underestimated. It is the immovable object they brace against when faced with an unstoppable force.

Which quite often results in them getting flattened. But, like Coyote of American Indian legend, they just as often pick themselves up afterwards, dust themselves off, and keep on walking… into whatever comes next. Their survival is their defiance. It is truth to self that keeps them going.

If you’ve ever kicked against the pricks, ever fought for the right to become the person you are, then you’ll understand what I’m talking about, and what this book is talking about. You can look into the eyes of these characters and see the writer looking back at you.

“Hate is nothing more than a sign that people are threatened by whatever you are,” Gavriel tells his brother.

The social mindset that has made the word ‘hero’ worthless is precisely what makes our anti-heroes so valuable: they’re not normal. They show us another, more intuitive, prouder way.

We must pay a price for them and we must pay a price to be them.


Cameron Rogers. October 4th, 2005. Melbourne.

EDIT 1/8/08: Updated with text of 303's post.

Comments

[the-christian.livejournal.com]

Available at http://www.amazon.com/Witch-King-Autobiography-Dark-Lord/dp/0957938896/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
and most fine comic retailers today! He said with half a grin...

But more seriously, me, I don't know what makes an artist. If you write a book and take some time off to work, do you somehow lose 'artist' status? Are you an artist is you produce commercial art all day? Is it publications? Showings? Distro deals? Is it having that 'passion' and knowing, deep inside yourself, where muppets and unicorns and your soul meet and dance that you are an artist(ugh)?


If you do a webcomic about sarcastic gamers and the mother-figures who love them and make ancillary deals off t-shirts are you an artist? Is it just money that defines it? (I'd be tempted to actually say yes to that. I often quote you when you once said I don't do it for the money but... I do it for the money.)

Personally, I'd imagine that notion of 'artist' is a bit of made up Romance. You do the work, other people engage with it, that's all I reckon matters.

Anything else and you end up sounding like the kind of bugger who argues 'what is art?' when you're over 20 years of age.

Arty types

[tooticky.livejournal.com]

Myself, I'd go easy on amateurs. There's still a serious point to be made in that amateurs literally perform their art or craft for the love of it - to be paid and to have that as your main source of income immediately changes the deal. Amateurs have the freedom to be as trivial (macrame and fan fic about Star Trek) or as serious and out there as they like because they're not depending on their efforts for their income. The moment you make your art or craft the main source of your income I think other factors such as having/developing/maintaining an audience and people who are willing to sell your work come in. I could play devil's advocate and say that professional work is less free and sometimes less challenging than it could be, because it's a product for a fee. ;)
We all love to mock 'hacks' as much as we like to mock the person who does night-classes in a daggy craft.
'Artist' is a tough word, and the Romantic movement has a lot of answer for. People get this maggot in their head about artists somehow being above filthy lucre and the market, or that art is 'inspired' rather than more like what we traditionally associated with a craft - you learn and you produce. I think the christian is right about the role of Medieval artists - they weren't seen as especially inspired or special, so much as the work they did glorified someone else, either their master or ultimately God. They were firmly within and reinforced the hierarchy of their world. They didn't necessarily paint what they themselves believed - they painted what they were commissioned to paint, usually propaganda of some kind, religious or political. They almost never left their names on their work. They were of the artisan class, not artists. Far more like our ideas of graphic designers, advertising and film industry folk today.
It was with the Renaissance that the idea of an individual artist with a name worth preserving started to develop. But the idea of artists as somehow outside the boundaries of class and the contracts of employment comes directly from the Romantic movement, along with the idea that you 'wander lonely as a cloud' until inspiration strikes and you suddenly churn out a master-piece. The Romantic poets, writers and artists were trying to describe their experience - as a rule they were male, sometimes they were already of independent means (and almost always of middle class), so they didn't have to scramble after patrons and publishers. They were often literally 'amateurs' and gentlemen to boot, set apart from the hoi-polloy and all demeaning commercial considerations. Irritating that the very ideas of class that we treat with such wariness or disdain also infiltrate our ideas of art.
To stand and say 'There's never been anything like this before. I have made it. You will love it (and buy it) Because It Is Art.' is a peculiarly Western notion born over the last hundred years. Artists who now go out of their way to produce art that no one can 'use' but are still expected to buy such as installations involving ox hearts and jello are the ultimate expression of this.
You're right. It's fascinating.