Artists Are "Different"?

[Valerie Gudorf]

I've been pondering the cultural image that has been passed down through the centuries, that "artists are a bit peculiar"---moody, temperamental, mentally unbalanced, fragile, "not of this world", etc.

Did you ever buy into any of this? Sheepishly, guiltily, I admit that I have been moody (read, "prone to bouts of clinical depression"), and at times, mentally fragile since earliest childhood. Whether I also fit the category of artist may still yet be determined. What actually is an "artist" anyway?

One thing I do know is that an artist cannot afford to be a prima-donna. You cannot afford to "wait for the muse" and only paint when "inspired". You must work even when you're in the crappiest of moods, must take care of the business end of things, even though it's an uncomfortably "left-brained" activity requiring an alarming amount of time.

Discipline, perseverance, faith---all qualities with which to wrestle daily. And I've said nothing of the ego required to hang out a shingle, proclaiming oneself, "Artist" (such an amorphous term!). Ok, I'm being somewhat confessional here: Every day, I must tell myself a quote by Peggy Baumgaertner, "Fake it until you make it". Often, I feel like the biggest faker around!

But I'm the only one around here who will admit to such thoughts, right... ?

[Michele Rushworth]

You're an artist as soon as you decide to call yourself one.

I often do demos at schools and some of the little kids come up and watch with awe. They say to me, "Are you a REAL artist?" I respond, "Yes. Are you, too?"

When they inevitably say, "No", I ask if they have ever made a drawing or a painting. Of course they respond, "Well, yes..." and I tell them, "Then you're an artist, too!" They go away with such pride, and I like to think, new ideas of possibilities for their future.

[Valerie Gudorf]

Michele,

The accepted definition of "Artist" seems to change daily and vary from person to person. On one end of the continuum are the "true artists" (those whom most people would define as such---DaVinci, Bouguereau, Richard Lack, William Whitaker, for instance) and there are the "legends in their own minds" (and apparently in the minds of far too many others--Hockney, springs immediately to mind ) at the other.

Somewhere in the vast intervening space are the hordes of us attempting to make art on a daily basis, who've identified the benchmark for excellence and sometimes dispair that we might never reach it. Of course, few of us will ever be DaVinci's.

Are you an artist because some gallery in SoHo is willing to hang your work, because you turned a profit in three out of the last five income- taxable years, because you have won major contest prizes for your art?

It's funny. I have an eight year old neice who I believe to be an artist with all my heart. She has an sense of design uncanny for one so young, her draftmanship is also quite advanced, and there doesn't appear to be much else that excites her in the way that making art does. I have told her parents on many occasions that Nicole is a "true artist". I base that opinion on the belief that she has real artistic sensibilities, along with the passion to make beautiful images with paint and paper. So why is this definition not acceptable when it comes to myself?

Michele, your definition is certainly a healthy one. Whatever definition will allow one to stop fretting and keep working is probably best.

I'd still love to hear your opinion on my first observation: Are Artists (as a whole) "different"?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Maybe. But I've found other occupations to be more consistent, like: librarians with no sense of humour, auto parts salepeople that act all-knowing, coaches that are indelicate and loud, fabric salespeople that are dull...

The artists I know that actually call painting their job are reliable professionals. The Van Gogh and Picasso types exist mostly in the movies and coffee shops, although the press loves the act. I think artists are like everyone else only more so.

Don't forget nowadays singers are artists, tattooist are artists, interior designers are artists. As I hear it, everyone is now an artist except illustrators.

[Mike McCarty]

I'd still love to hear your opinion on my first observation: Are Artists ( as a whole) "different"?

Valerie,

I would say of course we are different. I would also say that in my opinion dentists are very different. CPA's are different. Politicians are different.

In my adult life I have had several professions. Honestly, at the beginning of each, I was incompetent in my own eyes. But my philosophy has always been, walk the walk, by the time they figure out I'm not what I say I am I will have already arrived. Peggy B's theory is right on the mark.

All people in all professions have self-doubt. If artists have a greater share it's because we are constantly involved in the work of creation.

I am an artist, who will stand against me? Who has devised a test to discredit me?

[Cynthia Daniel]

You might find the following thread interesting: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1042

From the poll, you could conclude that artists are either more intuitive or that intuitives are more likely to take tests and answer polls.

You may also find this book interesting:

The Highly Sensitive Person: How to Thrive When the World Overwhelms You

[Stanka Kordic]

I think we ARE different because we see the world in a beautiful light, and are driven to express it. (at least most of us).

What I resent is hairdressers and clothing people deciding how I should present myself outwardly because I call myself an artist. The wilder the better?? don't think so...

[Linda Brandon]

I am an artist, who will stand against me? Who has devised a test to discredit me?

Mike,
I am happy to provide the Universal Artist Standardized Achievement Test in order to correctly assess your artistic capacity.

Circle the correct answer:

1. Angle:square :: paint tube:___________.

a. No answer. There can be no answer.
b. Marshmallow Fluff.
c. What are all these dots? Is this, like, math?

2. Art is long, life is ___________.

a. Bourgeois question! I shall not answer!
b. I didn't think art was long, I thought life was long. Are they both long, maybe?
c. Lifelong.

3. How old were you when you first created art?

a. I was born holding a paint brush. My mother was so unhappy.
b. I have been through many lives as an artist. I mean, like, I was reincarnated over and over again, you know? So 'old' kind of has no meaning to me.
c. I am still in a high chair.

4. What best describes your artistic philosophy?

a. No man is an island in a winter of discontent.
b. Oh, that's enough talk about me. So, what do YOU think of my work?
c. I despise this kind of weak parody. Please get new Moderators for this Forum.

5. How would you describe your work?

a. Significant. Very, very significant.
b. We will be happy to contact you at our convienience as soon as our busy schedule permits us to leave the studio. We like to speak of ourselves in third person plural to imply that there are a lot of us in the studio luxuriating in art sale proceeds.
c. Words! Mere words are useless.

Optional Essay:
If you had to be either a canvas or a stretcher bar, which would you rather be? Discuss and compare.

[Linda Nelson]

I gained alot of insight into myself as an "artist" when I learned my Myers Briggs personality type. I highly recommend it. I see how portraiture painting in particular is my path of how to satisfy components of my personality type.

I think this thread is talking about feeling worthy of deeming oneself an "Artist" - as a result of having or not having a certain level of talent for art, or "an eye" for it. This most certainly is a scale of measure that's got A LOT of gray zone. (One day you think you're clearly in past over line, the next day you think it's set at a level you'll never reach). But I think one who is "talented" is also transformed into "artist" by the amount and type of passion that shapes them, which is where understanding ones' Myers Briggs becomes useful.

I am more comfortable now in considering myself an artist as a result of knowing my personality type. As far as earning the title "Artist" by talent, some days I succeed, some days I don't. So some days I'm an artist just because of where my heart is (maybe that's why "fake it 'til you make it" rings true).

I don't believe 'Artist' is a personality type in and of itself. Others are artists because of their personality type - which also explains how we can all be artists but may have very different styles, goals with it, like or not like each others' work.

In terms of feeling awkward or different, yes I very much feel that way, and it can be the basis of confidence or depression. To understand why I'm moved by some sense (a beautiful moment, a song, a ray of light casting on the cat), I assume it's my physiology responding (the basis of talent). To understand why I feel one step behind/ahead of those around me, I turn to my myers briggs description (which reveals my passions).

I thinks it's ironic how being called "An Artist" can both be the highest of compliments and the lowest of insults, depending on one's intonation.

Linda

[Jim Riley]

Artists are different in the sense that we typically employ our energies toward the visual and emotional impact or communication we can effect in others. This applies to the broad categories of fine and commercial art.

Most of the stereotypical descriptions of artists have no more value than those assigned to accountants, scientists, engineers, and others. It has been my experience as a commercial/ industrial as well as fine artist, that in fact there is a lot more in common than usually recognized. The general public has a notion that all artist are creative and those in the measured sciences not. I have found this untrue.

The term Artist, like other professional titles, is simply a broad brush (no pun intended) way of grouping activity and interests. How good you are and your area of specialty has not much to do with it.

The following quote by Robert Henri is one of my favorites. He has a larger definition of art/artist than is typically understood and I would not expect him to encourage a Bouguereau vs. Hockney argument.

"ART when really understood is the province of every human being. It is simply a question of doing things, any thing well. It is not an outside, extra thing.

When the artist is alive in any person, whatever his kind of work may be, he becomes an inventive, searching, daring, self-expressing creature. He becomes interesting to other people. He disturbs, upsets, enlightens, and he opens ways for a better understanding. Where those who are not artists are trying to close the book, he opens it, shows there are still more pages possible.

The world would stagnate without him, and the world would be beautiful with him, for he is interesting to others. He does not have to be a painter or sculptor to be an artist. He can work in any medium. He simply has to find the gain in the work itself, not outside it".

Robert Henri