As a one-time full-time artist, I am now basically shocked at how easily my new found “day job” has become the goddess to whom all sacrifices of art, life and sometimes sanity are made. I made the decision for all of my artistic endeavors to become part of my world of “hobby”. To the offense of many actual artists that I interact with I am forced to view my pursuits in this manner. I admit this is only a psychological trick I play on myself. By simply naming it so, I feel that I can distinguish its worth and therefore focus much more readily and doggedly on the tasks that bring home the bacon.
I again find myself in a position where I want to be able to identify myself with a label. I believe it is a romantic, possibly nostalgic notion that believes that I need to name myself. Especially as I want to name myself something other than as an artist. This presents a potential reckoning for one of my strongest held believes. I’ve argued on line and in bars about the beauty of art, therefore the artist, being all inclusive. I’ve argued against better versed, better researched and better spoken individuals that art does not necessarily exist as a result of intent. The creator does not exclusively determine art. The recipient determines art as well. If I am to be consistent then I would have to say that I am an artist even when I create intermittently. Am I therefore and artist through intent? If that is the case then I would need the result of this intent? Is this the case? Can I be an artist without a result? Maya Angelou says we are all created as creators. If we believe, we must remember that we are all not necessarily artists or are we, without realizing it? Are we all artists? Not necessarily. It depends on the shaky agreement between the giver and the receiver. I believe the agreement to be so amalgomous that if an abandoned gas station sign appeals to someone as an abandoned sculpture, then for that person it is a sculpture. Then I must be an artist, even when I am brining home the bacon or even “as” I bring home the bacon.
This has to be true, but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, I only feel like a creative person when I am being creative. Even if I am not an artist, by the accepted definition of which I can accept, I can not accept a life that does not create. Creation is also a shaky surface to place one’s faith. There are many forms of creation, but the ones that appeal to me involve the creation of something that causes an involuntary cathartic response. Sure, it can be “intended” for some other purpose, but often design, artisan and craftsmanship cause this item of “use” to become more than its original intent. It has acquired an additional result of its intention. It has grown, dare I say acquired value. Unfortunately, I apply these criteria to myself, clearly a sentient being (I hope). I believe that above and beyond the daily grind that I call my “job” that my outcomes are greater than my intent. That my actions, my daily activities contribute to something more.
I continue to wrestle with the terms and how I apply them to myself. The reality of the situation lies in the fact that we will be defined by our actions, our inactions, ourselves and others, so why think about it. Do something.
I again find myself in a position where I want to be able to identify myself with a label. I believe it is a romantic, possibly nostalgic notion that believes that I need to name myself. Especially as I want to name myself something other than as an artist. This presents a potential reckoning for one of my strongest held believes. I’ve argued on line and in bars about the beauty of art, therefore the artist, being all inclusive. I’ve argued against better versed, better researched and better spoken individuals that art does not necessarily exist as a result of intent. The creator does not exclusively determine art. The recipient determines art as well. If I am to be consistent then I would have to say that I am an artist even when I create intermittently. Am I therefore and artist through intent? If that is the case then I would need the result of this intent? Is this the case? Can I be an artist without a result? Maya Angelou says we are all created as creators. If we believe, we must remember that we are all not necessarily artists or are we, without realizing it? Are we all artists? Not necessarily. It depends on the shaky agreement between the giver and the receiver. I believe the agreement to be so amalgomous that if an abandoned gas station sign appeals to someone as an abandoned sculpture, then for that person it is a sculpture. Then I must be an artist, even when I am brining home the bacon or even “as” I bring home the bacon.
This has to be true, but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, I only feel like a creative person when I am being creative. Even if I am not an artist, by the accepted definition of which I can accept, I can not accept a life that does not create. Creation is also a shaky surface to place one’s faith. There are many forms of creation, but the ones that appeal to me involve the creation of something that causes an involuntary cathartic response. Sure, it can be “intended” for some other purpose, but often design, artisan and craftsmanship cause this item of “use” to become more than its original intent. It has acquired an additional result of its intention. It has grown, dare I say acquired value. Unfortunately, I apply these criteria to myself, clearly a sentient being (I hope). I believe that above and beyond the daily grind that I call my “job” that my outcomes are greater than my intent. That my actions, my daily activities contribute to something more.
I continue to wrestle with the terms and how I apply them to myself. The reality of the situation lies in the fact that we will be defined by our actions, our inactions, ourselves and others, so why think about it. Do something.
3 comments:
I think that Angelou is correct. Each of us possesses an ability to create. That creation can range from a work of art, to a beautiful report, to a friendship, to a child. Yet, the artist is one who names himself/herself, and seeks to add to the defined artistic world. It's the difference between being (creative) and doing (artistic). My guess is you still like doing; therefore, you remain the artist you chose to become.
If you have done art in the past and will do art in the future, you are an artist.
well put 'free and 'flat... that's why i invite you folks along... to remind me.
Post a Comment