|
hopelesslyInvo -> RE: Artists (11/11/2008 9:01:32 PM)
|
art is hard to define, and i think that's greatly led to people destroying the meaning of the word and throwing it around for absolutely "anything", especially when people are trying to describe something as being an "artisan skill level"; people can argue that "bagging groceries is an art" and all this crap just makes me want to bury my head into the palm of my hand as it's the only logical response to such stupidity.
i personally segregate arts between what we commonly know as "fine arts" and "everything else", even music. there's already words for what everyone does, musician, guitarist, singer/vocalist, drummer, designer, director, actor, engineers, dancers... as well as painters, sculptors, illustrators, photographers~
how i look at things is what the end product is...
what is a song? it's music
what is a blueprint? it's a design
what is a mechanical construct? it's a machine or utility, engineers solve problems of practicality, they don't "make art".
what is a painting, a drawing, a sculpture? it's art, there's no other way to explain it, which is why it's called art, these are the things that the word "existed to describe" when coined, and is where the term art for art's sake came from compared to "applied art" when people began implementing it into other things. art isn't by any defining purposes expected to or supposed to have a "use" which is what separates it from everything else, and why music as well as photography is so easily added to the list of what people refer to as "arts".
the other thing that pisses me off is anyone being able to call themselves an artist despite their proficiency or capability, though i can't win the argument in saying they aren't, i have issues with most people who claims themselves to be an "ar-teest" nonetheless. i am at least afforded the right to critique something as being bad art and/or questioning the truth of their motives. taking snapshots with a disposable camera does not mean you're a photographer, and taking them with a six thousand dollar one doesn't either.
i've never boasted myself to be an artist before, but art is what i make my living off of, and on that subject... yes you can absolutely make a living off of it, no it's not likely to be in the same manner as artists of the past, but storyboarding, conceptualization and animation aside, there's far too much commercial work for there to be no use or jobs for artists.
i see art as being more special than most talents or endeavors for the simple fact that it is NOT essential, art is not about utility, use, or function; it's for appreciation and/or expression. think of a glass sculpture compared to one of stone or metal, does it not make sense that among the very reasons the glass is preferred and considered more precious by most is that it IS fragile and must be appreciated, handled, treated, and looked at differently because of it? hell, digging up an old expression, look at a glass cannon in the aspects of art, and then in the aspects of design and engineering, see any differences yet between appreciation/expression and failure in use/utility/function?
big difference between the skill and how you use it, bigger difference between being an artist and producing art. i'd look at my dentist as being an artist long before i would an engineer or drafter. as far as medium goes though, the true definition of art is in the deemed intention of the creator, which is why A toilet can be art, but YOUR toilet is not. the word art and artist gets thrown around so much more than even the word "love" does, yet we all seem to at least know what that word is "supposed" to mean.
art exists to put color in our world, and in other cases, to take it out. without art, we'd be living in a world very much like something a "machine" would create, so as a preservation to our humanity, i see art as being absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
