“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” ~ Cesar Cruz
The definition of art in LA was always measured by two simple outcomes: fame and fortune. Some idealists in my home town might muse that real art was about something else, but at the end of the day, that’s what it came down to. Let’s be honest, the stage actor in Minnesota who is in love with his craft doesn’t need to move to sunny So Cal to make art. He moves there to make money.
I was sitting in a bar the other night with two new friends. They were both “foreign”, in this case meaning non-German, and very quickly the conversation did its usual thing and began to circle around what we do.
The woman to my left had been classically trained as an actress and had worked in New York for several years before becoming a theater owner and producer in Berlin. She was a thespian with natural ability who had received rave reviews and money for her work. And yet, she did not consider herself an actress. She went to school for it but she did not identify with this role.
The man to my right had grown up in a family of internationally renowned jazz musicians and he clearly had a passion and aptitude for dance. He had received very positive feedback for his performances but was currently running his own landscaping business. When I asked him, he said he loved it but since he had never been to dance school, he didn’t consider himself a dancer.
I explained how I had love for singing and acting and was currently working in business development. I was educated in business, have an aptitude and passion for performing but would at this point in my life find it tricky to call myself an artist.
Then, as the waitress brought the next round, I asked a seemingly simple question, “What makes an artist?”
Is it your education?
Is it your passion?
Is it your aptitude?
Is it the feedback you receive- monetarily or otherwise?
Is it the identification you have with it?
Or, perhaps, it is some combination of all of the above.
I got to play devil’s advocate for a while, which was really fun. “So what if someone is educated in it, has a passion for it but has no natural ability? What if a person is passionate about it and receives positive feedback but has no education in it? What if a person has the aptitude, passion and identification but has never gotten paid for it?…”
If I were to use one word to describe art in Berlin it would be “raw”. I love this because in contrast to all that glitters and shines, for me, it seems more real. It’s a bit like uncut stones- I find the honesty of their imperfections mesmerizing. But I have been having this ongoing “feud” with one of my friends here. She spent many years as a professional recording artist in New York and says that the art in Berlin is sub-par. My definition of art, since moving here, has become “what moves me”. Her definition is “what’s good.” I guess they are both pretty subjective.
But I remain very curious about this. And as I prepare to travel to LA next week, these important questions linger. What makes an artist and what is art? So, I am writing this blog to get you in on the conversation. If you are reading this line, you are now officially involved (insert maniacal laugh here!*) I want to know how you define art and being an artist…
I think the term ‘artist’ comes from performing something with artistry. What I mean by that is the process of not only having an idea, but then executing it, and undoing it and redoing it and chopping and changing it until the result seems to be reached, and it becomes something you know that it is done, or as done as it will be. This is the creative process and any artist who knows this process will be able to explain how they crafted that particular piece of work, step by step. Even if the description involves sentences like ‘..and then I did his because I felt…’. Artistry is idea + execution + instinct + plus the harnessing of creative energy into a final piece of work. Whether that be dance, a piece of jewellery, a dining table or a story. ‘Artist’ is one of the may professions that is hijacked by wannabes and charlatans and often people confuse the ACT of creating with the PROCESS. There is a huge difference between the two. In my humble artistic opinion…..
I don’t think the word “artist” can or should be self-prescribed (like the word “genius” or “star”.) These things are said about or toward someone, and are difficult assignations to be taken seriously if owned or announced by someone. You can be a painter, a dancer or a songwriter: these are actions, occupations. Let someone else call you an artist. As a do-er, though, you can call your work art if that’s your perception of (or intention for) it.
Art to me is a combination of the perceiver and the perceived. Not just the audience perceiving the work, but also–or possibly only–in the artist perceiving the material. In that respect, recognition or profitability is irrelevant: a sculpture falling alone in the woods still makes a sound, even if no one’s there to see it.
I suppose that any body of work that comes from a person using their creativity should be considered art. At church last year, they had anyone who considered themselves an artist to stand up to be prayed over…this included anyone from professional actors to doodlers and everything in between. They didn’t ask whether you thought you were good or met a certain ‘standard’, only that YOU considered whatever you do to be art. There are many who have been trained, have talent and may even be paid for their art, yet they have no passion. On the other end those who never had a class or positive feedback contain an abundance of passion. I believe the journey of life is art and God has given us an infinite number of examples through His creation. It’s our choice to enjoy it or not!
I can’t think about this question with all the creative shrapnel in my head.
The question of whether one can or should call oneself an artist can be a tricky one, when so many other factors come into play (eg: education, success, recognition, acceptance). I have no problem with declaring onself an artist at any stage, but one should be mindful that words set reality into motion and sooner or later, that person will be faced with real artistic responsibilties (revisiting the question). It’s as precious a role as a shaman and should be treated with as much respect. Whether one is successful at sales, shows in consistent exhibitions or is trained in the craft are all issues that ultimately become irrelevant to the work. As long as the person indulges in the realm of artmaking with sincere passion, by living in or through the process, I feel that one has earned the right to define oneself as an artist, despite how others label efforts, accolades or skill level.
art is a pattern from the “other place” in the mind, not the brain. its relevance and quality is based on how well you can express that pattern. artists can create and evolve the pattern. the reason for the relationship between the one expressing and those that ingest that pattern is that we are pattern creatures; we find them endlessly and we create them, whether it is a daily routine or bad habits or a cooking recipe. the artist wields the ability to interact with and create high level patterns at will. the ability to recognize patterns and convey them, is a rare and special ability. in the present day world, many are led to believe that artists reiterate forms that are accepted as art, but that is artist hell. artists create patterns which can be expressed in as many different ways as there are possible thoughts. to go into that space where ideas come from, and bring stuff back, is what makes an artist and the quality of their work is based on the resolution of the expression. i can go on (trust me). would love to chat about it sometime. cheers. onyx
Here is an interview between one of my favourite playwrite Max Frisch and my favourite literature critic Marcel Reich-Ranicki from 1964. I translated it, hence it was in german .When ever it says theatre or literature i’d like to think of it as art. hope you like it 🙂
We produce theatre because we like theatre,that’s it.And as those artist that we are, we won’t let the days confuse us.Art is absolute. And what the world makes of our theatre it’s her choice ,not ours. And society is our material , not our partner . We are not the educator of the people, we play cause we like to.
we play in public cause we seem to need it to satisfy our lust for theatre but we can never really shake it of,the public. The public becomes our partner ,wether we want to or not.
Certainly, a form of responsibility towards the public wasn’t planed but it tends to sneak in once u’ve reached a certain point of success.
This responsibility, even if it’s a later one, the writer can not ignore.So he has to put some thought into the effect of his work.
And whoever thinks that even thou a learning effect wasn’t planed , that it still leaves no lasting impression on society,he is not only naive but also unrealistic.The work of a writer could be a fatal contribution ,either it persuades you to an atrocious act or it puts you to sleep while an atrocious act is happening.
So is it that literature is not supposed to commit atrocious acts? Not only. Without literature the world might not be any different, but she would be viewed differently, just as any beneficiary would like to see her… not questioned.
http://www.zeit.de/1964/43/engagierte-literatur-wozu
but to answer your question …I’d say PASSION.
My man Rilke said it best:
“In the deepest hour of the night, confess to yourself that you would die if you were forbidden to write. And look deep into your heart where it spreads its roots, the answer, and ask yourself, must I write?”
― Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet