Writers are Artists - aren't we?

[LightShadow]

When I used the word "artist" to describe myself, my significant other laughed, saying that only painters and such are artists. When I looked up artist in the dictionary to prove her wrong, the definition was: One who creates works of art, esp. a painter, sculptor, or musician. She laughed and said "I told you so." So then I looked up art, and finally shut her up when the 4th definition said: "Any field of category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature." Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?

[E.G. Gammon]

When I used the word "artist" to describe myself, my significant other laughed, saying that only painters and such are artists. When I looked up artist in the dictionary to prove her wrong, the definition was: One who creates works of art, esp. a painter, sculptor, or musician. She laughed and said "I told you so." So then I looked up art, and finally shut her up when the 4th definition said: "Any field of category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature." Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?

Whenever I refer to myself as an "artist," it usually comes after the word "literary." A literary artist. I think it sounds better. It saves the whole conversation about "What kind of stuff do you paint/draw?" "I don't paint/draw, I'm a writer. All writers are artists." If you come across someone who challenges you saying that art involves drawing or painting a picture, just tell them that writers create pictures with words. Words are our media.

[maestrowork]

I think like any profession... there are two types. There are the artists and the craftmans. Some writers are craftmans. Some are artists. Some are both.

[KTC]

A writer is an artist. Creativity is art.

[LightShadow]

A writer is an artist. Creativity is art.My feelings exactly, thank you, ya'll. Let's see what else others have to say about this concept...and also, since obviously we all see ourselves as artists, does it bother you when someone swears up and down that you're not?

[katiemac]

Let's see what else others have to say about this concept...and also, since obviously we all see ourselves as artists, does it bother you when someone swears up and down that you're not?

Well, while I think writing is an art, I wouldn't call myself an artist. I just don't see myself that way, but I have no problem calling other authors artists, or writers who call themselves artists.

On the other hand, it bothers me anytime someone tries to tell me I'm something I'm not and vice versa. One of my biggest pet peeves.

[KTC]

It would bother me if my significant other told me I wasn't if I believed that I was. (And you are.) It seems a little disrespectful to laugh at you about it. I hope she is more supportive of your actual writing. Tell her to read this thread and hear what your fellow ARTISTS think on the subject.

All the best,

Kevin

[PixelFish]

I don't mind writers calling themselves artists, or even better, craftsman, but I think for clarity's sake, it's just easier to say writer or author or poet. I'm a graphic designer and an artist in my day job, and when I refer to my art, people assume my visual art, and when I say writing, they assume my literary works.

[arrowqueen]

'Course you are. 'Ignore the Philistines.' that's what I say. (Mind you, I have been on the vodka, so 'Philistines' did come out a trifle garbled.)

[LightShadow]

She read the thread and back pedaled. She supports me, but finds it difficult to understand why I bother (until recently, anyway, since I landed an agent). To her life is all about working hard and so forth. Dreams are for dreamers. Thing is, it's the dreamers that make dreams come true. What a horrid place this ball of dirt would be if there were no dreamers. Granted, being a dreamer is not enough. Hard work and dedication must follow.

[Nateskate]

In my mind, there are distinctions between writers. Some writers are definitely artists, and I say that in the sense that they have a real gift of communicating with words on paper. They can touch other people's spirits in the same way that music or painting touches people's spirits.

What about other writers?

Writing is cathartic. Some people are essentially journalling their lives. If they have a sense of humor, and insight, they can be enjoyable to listen to, even if they aren't particularly artistic in their approach.
For others it's a form of relaxation, and self-expression. Some people aren't writing for others, they are writing for themselves, in the same way someone who isn't really a painter paints. Not everyone who shoots basketballs is an athlete, and they don't care to be.

Here's a thought. How many people just plain have something to say? Now, they may not have a writing gift per se. Getting their thoughts out may be a real chore. Yet, how many people have written great works, who weren't really writers? They just had great stories.

[maestrowork]

Creativity not = art.

I'm sorry. I was a software engineer before and I considered my work very creative. I would NEVER have called myself an artist.

[brokenfingers]

Art and the term artist are subjective. Different people have different views on what is art and what is not, what constitutes an artist and what doesn’t.

I, myself, am not an artist. I would consider myself a craftsman. Writing is after all, a craft.

I don’t consider writing an art – but I do believe that some people through their talent, skill and brilliance can raise their writing to the level of art.

But I don’t feel that’s a call an individual can make for themselves.

Anybody can label themselves an artist. But does that make it so? That is the question. Just because somebody put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art doesn’t mean it’s art to me or the person is an artist - to me.

I can’t help but feel that it would be presumptuous of me to call myself an artist based on the fact that I write. How can I say I am an artist unless others have seen and judged my work, have felt the impact of my words, have had it touch their souls and then said: That is truly art.

It’s a matter of perception.

How can I label my work art without an audience to look at it and say:
This is art.

How can I call myself an artist unless I walk into a room and others say:
There is an artist.

I can call myself a king – but if I don’t have any land for an actual kingdom and real subjects addressing me as such – does it mean anything?

[maestrowork]

A friend of mine defined art this way:

Art conveys information on the surface, and evokes emotions underneath.


If you look at a crucifix in a jar of urine and it evokes some particular emotions for you that has nothing to do with the crucifix in a jar of urine -- you can call it art.

If you read a sentence that says "he felt sad" and you don't feel anything by it, it's just words on paper. Even if you feel sad reading that sentence, it's still not art.

[brokenfingers]

So in that case, if I see a homeless man who reeks of puke and piss - I've seen art?

Like I said: Everybody has a different definition.

[fallenangelwriter]

i would consider writing an art form.


as for what others consider us... i don't carer what others think./ wait, let me take that back: i don't care what individual others think. i wouldn't enjopy being universally looked down upon or banished from my peer group, but as long as i have some friends and admirerers i don't care what everyone else thinks.

[arrowqueen]

If the sight of a crucifix in a jar of urine evokes contempt for a con-merchant masquerading as an artist, does that still make it 'art'?

[Susan Gable]

I'm a storyteller.

Susan G.

[brokenfingers]

I think writing can be made an art form. It isn't automatic. It must be earned - like anything else.

Writing does not equal art. But with the right skill, talent and inspiration - it can achieve the level of art.

To me at least.

[maestrowork]

If the sight of a crucifix in a jar of urine evokes contempt for a con-merchant masquerading as an artist, does that still make it 'art'?

According to the Guggenheim museum, probably.

[MacAllister]

If the sight of a crucifix in a jar of urine evokes contempt for a con-merchant masquerading as an artist, does that still make it 'art'?
Depends on how much it sells for.

[Mr Underhill]

If you write fiction or poetry or other creative writing, you are an artist. Those things are arts, just as painting, musical composition or dramatic performance are arts.

Not every activity that demands creativity is art. Engineers use creativity to solve problems – the heart of their profession. Scientists use creativity to dream up new hypotheses in their attempt to explain how the universe works. In fact, creativity can be used to enhance all aspects of life.

If your writing is done to someone else's specification – such as journalism or software manuals – it's possible you are more of a "craftsman."

But all art involves learning a craft and being a craftsman. Watch a sculptor at work if you doubt this. Actors (performing artists) often refer to their art as "the craft."

Perhaps the deciding question is, "Why do you create the things you do?" If the answer is that someone else asked for it or is paying you, that is work. If your primary reason for writing a story or painting or performing is to create something for its own sake, you are an artist.

On another level, writing can be said to be "an art, not a science." Which means it is something you have to "get" at an intuitive level to do well. There are rules, sure, and lessons you can take, but these will only get you so far. Anyone can learn to tie their shoes. Not everyone has what it takes to paint well, or write compelling prose. Very few people have the unfailing internal rhythm needed to be a drummer. Most people can learn some of the basics of these, but lack the particular talent for that activity.

So in that case, if I see a homeless man who reeks of puke and piss - I've seen art?You're referring to Art Grobchek? You know he was in Korea, I hope. Very sad story there, I hear it began back in...

[William Haskins]

"writers are a little below clowns and a little above trained seals."
- john steinbeck

call yourself whatever you want. what matters is what gets on the page. i've known good writers that would never call themselves artists, and i've known terrible writers who proclaim themselves artists.

what's wrong with "writer"?

[Jamesaritchie]

When I used the word "artist" to describe myself, my significant other laughed, saying that only painters and such are artists. When I looked up artist in the dictionary to prove her wrong, the definition was: One who creates works of art, esp. a painter, sculptor, or musician. She laughed and said "I told you so." So then I looked up art, and finally shut her up when the 4th definition said: "Any field of category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature." Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?

If anyone called me an artist I suppose I'd either laugh, or more likely, feel insulted. Probably both. And I can't see what difference it makes either way. You do what you do, and as someone once said, "If you have to call yourself an artist, you're not."

I'm a writer. It's a personal thing, but I find the term "artist" to be too pretentious. Especially in this day and age. It too often conceals either an inability to sell something, or a complete lack of talent for anything except salesmanship. Neither is a good thing.

I don't think a crucifix in a jar of urine is art, I don't think a thousand sugar packets dumped on a museum floor is art, and I don't think some idiot replacing the clapper in a large bell with his own body, then having it rung until he was unconscious is art. I don't think a moron stripping naked and acting like a dog is art, I don't think knocking holes in plaster with a sledgehammer is art, and I don't think closing your eyes and throwing paint balloons is art. But I've seen all these things called art. And, of course, there's the recent "artist" responsible for this headline:

"Artist receives $3,760 grant for making jewelry from mouse droppings, toenail clippings and pubic hair."

Does anyone still want to be called an artist?

And if evoking emotions is all there is to art, then any fool can be a great artist simply by doing anything that's in sufficiently bad taste. Or even anything that's sufficiently stupid. The human clapper proves this, and he'd hardly the dumbest excuse for a sentient being I've seen who had the label "artist" firm attached.

But if writers are artists, this still does not in any way mean much. Whoever said being an artist automatically means being good? There are great artists, mediocre artists, lousy artists, and those who should never be allowed control of a crayon, let alone a computer. There are "artists" who are wise, artists who are fools, artists who are intelligent, and artists who have the IQs of potted plants. Neither the word nor the career of "artist" comes automatically attached to talent, taste, intelligence, or common sense.

If people want to call themselves artists, that's fine by me. If other people want to call me an artist, I'll try not to laugh and/or feel insulted until they're out of hearing range. But I wish they'd have enough respect to keep such feelings to themselves until after I'm dead. Then they can cuss me all they like.

Me, I'm a writer.

[azbikergirl]

Creativity not = art.

I'm sorry. I was a software engineer before and I considered my work very creative. I would NEVER have called myself an artist.

Ditto (still am software engr), and ditto. I consider my writing to be art, just not the programming. Although there is a sort of art to it -- it's part logic and part style and finesse :) but it's not 'art.'

Writing = art

[Jamesaritchie]

Perhaps the deciding question is, "Why do you create the things you do?" If the answer is that someone else asked for it or is paying you, that is work. If your primary reason for writing a story or painting or performing is to create something for its own sake, you are an artist.

.

Somehow I doubt the value of a work lies in the motive of the worker. And I doubt being asked for something and paid for something means whatever is done is any more or any less art, or that the worker is any more or any less an artist.

If it did, we'd have to disquality pretty much all the great masters such as da Vinci, etc. Many of their greatest works were asked for, paid for, and done only to put come coins in the pocket.

[reph]

I don't know of any circumstances in which being called an artist or not is important for me.

[Mr Underhill]

Somehow I doubt the value of a work lies in the motive of the worker. And I doubt being asked for something and paid for something means whatever is done is any more or any less art, or that the worker is any more or any less an artist.It's not a question of value. As you said, there are good, bad and mediocre artists, and the same goes for art. If it did, we'd have to disquality pretty much all the great masters such as da Vinci, etc. Many of their greatest works were asked for, paid for, and done only to put come coins in the pocket.Sure, people can actually make a living as artists. But if all they wanted was to put some coins in their pocket, they would pick more lucrative (or at least more reliable) professions.

Sure, Bach wrote most of his pieces on the job. But if you asked him about them, somehow I doubt he would point to a spec sheet.

You know that great scene from The Agony and the Ecstasy where Michelangelo is painting the Sistine Chapel and the pope comes into complain? If he were just a house-painter, he would simply say, "You want more blue? OK I paint it more blue. You want a cherub over here? OK I paint a cherub." Michelangelo has his own idea about what it should look like, because he is creating a work of art. He's lucky enough to have a great opportunity and get paid to boot. But his primary motivation is to create something. And perhaps a bit of ego. ;)

[Topcat136]

Topcat136's definition of an artist: An artist is someone who feels passionately about what he or she is doing enough to consider that task (whatever it may be) art! And that's all I have to say about that.

[paprikapink]

You know that great scene from The Agony and the Ecstasy where Michelangelo is painting the Sistine Chapel and the pope comes into complain? If he were just a house-painter, he would simply say, "You want more blue? OK I paint it more blue. You want a cherub over here? OK I paint a cherub." Michelangelo has his own idea about what it should look like, because he is creating a work of art. He's lucky enough to have a great opportunity and get paid to boot. But his primary motivation is to create something. And perhaps a bit of ego. ;)

I don't think you've hired many house-painters lately, Mr. U.

There may be a lotta "sure, whatever" type of workers out there, but there are at least as many, if not more, who want to put their own spin on everything they do, whether its stacking cereal boxes on the shelf in the grocery store or trimming the bushes in the landscape at the mall. The most trivial, mindless work can still be personalized, and people get really attached to those touches. Maybe that is what adds a quality of "art" to daily life.

I have a strong association between the words "art" and "artificial." It's something someone made, with intent; something outside of nature. It's not about whether its beautiful or whether you like it or whether it sells...and maybe not even whether an educated authority recognizes it as such. A sunset is not art. A fallen leaf is not art. A representation or a presentation of those things is. I'm picturing a frame built into a bluff in such a way that it contains a particular view of the setting sun on a particular day. A human body is not art. A lock of silver hair tied with a strand of black hair might be. Clearly, I have a much more liberal interpretation of what is art than do many here.

Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't say that writing technical manuals, for instance, is art. Hmmm, maybe it's the touches one adds beyond those which are essential to the required function. Is a chef an artist? We could live eating tasteless grayish food as long as it has all the nutrients we need. Maybe that's what I really resented about a lot of early "health food." It wasn't about anything except getting the job done.

As to whether or not I consider myself an artist, or what I do art, although it just really doesn't matter, I guess if I apply the model I just laid out, I'd have to say I am and it is. But I'm not getting printed or paid, so perhaps that puts me in a state of nature.

-paprikapink

Edited: If I'da seen topcat's post first, I wouldn'ta had to waste your time or mine on this one.

[Note On]

"If you have to call yourself an artist, you're not."

I understand the sentiment, but my passport says ARTIST because there's just nothing else it can say.

I've sold four novels to legit publishers; composed music for major software releases, national TV commercials, children's educational toys, New York concert halls (and a decommissioned lightship); written and directed three short films (two won awards; one's just starting the rounds of festivals); and my day job is graphic designer.

What could I possibly call myself besides "artist?" Tell me a better term, and I'll put it on my passport when this one expires.

Don't be ashamed of being an artist. Just try to be a good one.

[triceretops]

Art is too wide and incompassing a term. Have you ever seen a cladogram of the Dinosaur tree? I think writing is of the same order of art, but it is a different species. I can't remember the last time I saw someone edit a painting or sulpture. Writing is a craft, almost a collaborative effort by many, many people that polish it, give it depth, and present it to a (hopefully) receptive public. The term is getting screwed up with political correctness.

I think we had this same conversation about "writer" or "author." I think in a basic sense, fiction writers are just story tellers. Non-fiction writers are reporters. If you call yourself a writer (in general terms) then you've written in many mediums. If you've published something, then perhaps that means your an author. It's how you perceive the definitions. I've used "author."
To really describe my vocation--non-fiction book author.

I've heard the term "artist" most often used by non-published story tellers. I once belonged to a huge writing group of disgruntled amateurs, and you know what their motto was? "Editors and agents--don't let them bitches eff with your art, man! Art comes from the heart, dude."

No wonder I don't like the term "art" when applied to the craft of writing.

[gp101]

Of the people I've met that really cared about being referred to as an "artist", a lot of them were people who needed the approval of peers and the admiration of lay-people. Almost like they felt like they were part of an elite club, whether they deserved to be there or not. Those who were referred to by others as artists, but didn't give a damn about such a title were cranking out (and selling!) more pieces of their art (literature, paintings, whateva) than those who were fixated on terminology.

Why care if someone considers you an artist (unless you work with paint)? I think once someone (especially us newbies) concentrates too much on titles or pecking order, the chance that s/he becomes complacent or unwilling to improve or listen to criticism grows quickly.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to consider yourself an artist. Just don't focus too much on it. It's so subjective anyways.

But forget about "artist". Beware of the "artiste".

[zornhau]

I'm a wannabe novelist. When I'm in print, I'll be a novelist. When I'm very in print, I'll be a pro novelist. Does that make me an artist? Possibly. However, I proudest of my craftsmanship. Anybody can have grand visions. Not everybody can turn them into a story.

[maestrowork]

Ditto (still am software engr), and ditto. I consider my writing to be art, just not the programming. Although there is a sort of art to it -- it's part logic and part style and finesse :) but it's not 'art.'

Writing = art

But can't you say the same thing about writing (at least SOME writing, such as journalism or advertising or whatever...) -- part logic, part style and finesse?

Thus my original assertion: some writers are artists; some are craftsmen.

You can call a poet an artist. I don't care. You can call some novelists artists. That's fine. But don't call that guy who ghost-writes a novelization of "Terminator 3" an artist. He's a craftsman. It doesn't make him a lesser writer than all the others. Just different.

[maestrowork]

Michelangelo has his own idea about what it should look like, because he is creating a work of art. He's lucky enough to have a great opportunity and get paid to boot. But his primary motivation is to create something. And perhaps a bit of ego. ;)

It still doesn't define art.

When I designed software, I was paid to do it, and I came up with my own specifications (I was the designer, after all). There were requirements, of course. I mean, if you substitute the above sentence with:

Ray has his own idea of what the software should look and work like, because he's creating a work of art. He's lucky enough to have a great opportunity and get paid to boot. But his primary motivation is to create something. And perhaps a bit of ego.

Does it make the software I created art? I mean a lot of guys create software out of creativity (all that shareware out there). Can we call them art? and the programmers artists?

I mean, I write. Period. Do you consider this post "art"? I wrote it. So it must be art?

So what is art now? A painting? A sculpture? A piece of literature? A piece of software? A ceramic vase? A contemporary chair (which sometimes IS considered art and displayed at the Contemporary Art museums...)? A flower arrangement? Does art have to do with aesthetics or our sensibilities instead of functionality? ...

It sounds like a question good enough for a graduate school class...

[NeuroFizz]

Creativity not = art.

I'm sorry. I was a software engineer before and I considered my work very creative. I would NEVER have called myself an artist.

I agree, M, but I bet some of the things you did showed true artistry.

Artistry (synonyms) virtuosity, brilliance, talent, skill, expertness, mastery.

(Gear change) I quickly popped up a few university websites, and Creative Writing programs are usually in a College of Arts and Sciences (not very helpful) or in a College of Humanities. I found three universities that each had a College of Fine Arts, and none included the universities' Creative Writing Programs.

[BlueTexas]

I don't know of any circumstances in which being called an artist or not is important for me.

Yeah, what she said. When I use the term art as applied to writing, it's usually in high praise of some fabulous piece of literature, and I'm usually using it in a subjective sense.

Writers write. What difference does it make?

[NeuroFizz]

Sorry for a second post so soon. I just looked up "artist" in my synonym finder, and under category three are the following: trickster, deceiver, cheat, swindler. Aren't we all-of-the-above when we write fiction?

[brinkett]

I mean a lot of guys create software out of creativity.
Women do as well.

Writers write. What difference does it make?
None. But some people think titles actually matter.

I like Susan's take on it the best. Probably because it matches mine. ;)

[azbikergirl]

But can't you say the same thing about writing (at least SOME writing, such as journalism or advertising or whatever...) -- part logic, part style and finesse?
Sure, but with software, I may design something and have someone else code it, and I wouldn't even care. Or I may fix someone else's mistake, and they wouldn't care.

Thus my original assertion: some writers are artists; some are craftsmen.

OK, I'll agree that the person who scratches out a dissertation on the mating behavior of tsetse flies isn't creating art. A journalist would probably care more if someone tried to reconstruct his sentences than the dissertation writer would. So would a copy writer. Does that make them craftsmen vs artists?

Women do as well.

Thank you. :D

[LightShadow]

I didn't expect this to be such a hot subject, but I think the answer to the question is if you place the kind of importance on your writing (and creativity) that makes you think you are an artist, than you are an artist. If you feel you are crafting something, or as Maestro says, novelizing something that exists in different form, than you are a craftsman. It comes down to what you believe in your heart, I think.

[William Haskins]

i disagree. you can "believe in your heart" that the earth will open up and swallow, oh i don't know, let's say oprah... but believing it has no bearing on reality.

one who writes is a writer. that's empirically measurable.
one who paints is a painter. that's empirically measurable.

and so on.

who is, or is not, an artist in is the eye of the beholder.

and ultimately that's judged by output, not self-image.

[Nateskate]

According to the Guggenheim museum, probably.

Maestro, this isn't aimed at you. But as you might understand, Maplethorps "Piss" display was not art.

Of course that might sound controversial, but, me controversial? Why would I say, "Some museums can't differentiate between garbage and art?" Nah, that might seem confrontational. And I wouldn't dare say that some artists head should be shoved in a jar of urine, because that just wouldn't be right. And I don't feel that way at all. I wouldn't want that to happen. Would that be art? Yet in my mind, Maplethorp did symbolically shove "someone" and not "some thing" in a jar of Urine.

To me, there's a difference between creativity and destructiveness.

Honestly, Maplethorp had a lot of anger, and vented it, calling some of it art and shoving it in the worlds face. Even after his death, I don't wish any bad on him. But, some of his "art" was simply venting in an imbittered way, and a public museum should never have displayed it. Art is generally considered a positive word, an inspirational word, not something associated with Hitler's experiments...etc, which evoke an emotional responce. Were his flesh-lampshades art? Not in any way.


On the other hand, I think all creativity is somewhat artistic, including what people do with computers. It evokes an emotional responce from someone who is able to appreciate it.

[LightShadow]

What is art to one may not be art to another.

[aboyd]

Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?I had such a problem with this when I was creating Publisher Database. I had the exact same mindset as you. So I called any creative work, "art." For example, if you were going to track something you had created, the Web page I built would say, "track your art." It didn't matter whether it was music, painting, photography, poetry, stories -- all of it was art.

The problem? Even the artists didn't buy it! My very first few members sent me email saying, "art? I'm a writer!" After I while I started to switch everything to say "creative work" instead. I hate that.

It seems even writers themselves aren't convinced that what they do rises to the level of art.

-Tony

[Lenora Rose]

As a fine arts grad, I should note that many of the visual artists (and other serious professionals I've hung around with and met) put the emphasis on the difference between an artist and an artiste.

Artists work hard, with craftsmanship and creativity both. They don't see anything wrong with being inspired and creative - they also don't see anything wrong with being technical, craftsmanlike, or, for that matter, paid.

An artiste is in it for the pose. Even those who make real art, or at least get paid and shown in galleries, are all about "creativity" rather than craft, or deconstruction, or the latest buzzword. They actively enjoy the process of spouting bullshit. And sitting in cafes, and being part of the 'elite', etc.

The difference isn't necessarily in quality -- someone who claims to take craft seriously can still produce a P-o-S. But if it's the poseur thing you want to shun, shun artistes.

I don't think anybody writing **fiction** is strictly a craftsman in the definition of technical skill absent the creative spark. And yes, I do believe creativity, applied and mingled with technical skill, produces art. And yes, my definition is *that* broad. (Baking a cake or writing code sure can be art.) But I'm not offended by the term craftsman, nor by protests that that's what you are by preference.

MR. Underhill, using examples from the Renaissance and saying, "They'd have picked a more lucrative profession..." is a BAD way to make your point. The culture felt very differently about its art than we do (The whole "artiste" thing weould have been dismissed as crap, for one). Art was a fairly lucrative profession then, more often than it is now. (And Leonardo was an engineer, but as an engineer still depended on patronage). Use examples relevant to OUR culture, our attitude towards art, and our system of payment, if you want to talk about artists these days.

[aka eraser]

I write. I am a writer. If I move a reader then I'm a good writer.

I'll never consider myself an artist and if others did, at best, I think I'd feel embarrassed.

[maestrowork]

Awww... but Frank, we all agree that you're an artist.

(See Frank get embarrassed)

[aboyd]

Art is generally considered a positive word, an inspirational word, not something associated with Hitler's experiments...etc, which evoke an emotional responce. Were his flesh-lampshades art? Not in any way.I think art is a mirror hovering above your life, and whenever you look up, it brings certain things into sharp relief.

From that perspective, art has no need to be considered a positive word. Art could be ugly, filthy, vindictive, and evil -- providing that when you look at it, it challenges your assumptions, or makes you examine something inside of yourself.

That doesn't mean that flesh-lampshades are good & artistic. I think there is plenty of room for discernment. I've seen some vile stuff that existed merely for shock value -- it didn't speak to me at all, other than to hit me over the head with the suspicion that the "artist" was an attention-whore. And that's not art, that's junk. But I've seen other completely disgusting stuff that was really hard to get out of my head, that just made me think. As an example, consider these lyrics:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky

To half of the population, that song is just a song. To the other half, the religious half, that song is at least uninteresting and for some it's just a flat-out abomination. To the person I was 20 years ago, as a young Christian, it was very challenging to listen to. It made me think hard about my assumptions. Should I reject it because it throws me into a state of unease? Can I call it trash simply because it topples the things I've put on a pedestal?

-Tony

[Diviner]

If you place the kind of importance on your writing (and creativity) that makes you think you are an artist, than you are an artist. If you feel you are crafting something, or as Maestro says, novelizing something that exists in different form, then you are a craftsman. It comes down to what you believe in your heart, I think.

I''m not sure I agree with this quote, but it seems to go to the essence of what I believe. Craft is essential to both writing and painting. No matter how original or impressive a concept a painter has or wonderful a story to be told, the way it is painted or told is all important. Without craft, it will be too dull and awkward for many people to care about it. But, if all it has going for it is craft, it will be too dull to excite interest.

An artist needs both craft and a heart, whatever way s/he works. If a person is writing a story just to sell it, it may not be a work of art. If a painting or work of art excites only an intellectual response, it doesn't work for me. If it is too slick or sweetly pretty, it bores me. The kinds of things that make paintings work are quite different from those which make stories work, but the motivation and the learning of craft in order to be effective are similar.

In painting, there is a triangle, the viewer, the work of art, and the artist. (Duchamps). The work is not complete without the viewer, which is part of the reason the artist needs skill. In writing, the reader is equally important.

If a writer thinks s/he is involved in making art, s/he probably is. But the ultimate judge is the viewer/reader. All we can do is bring our best to the work. If part of that is the desire to create art, it stands a better chance of being so.

For years I called myself a printmaker or a graphic designer or a painter. "Aritist" seemed too grand for my achivements. Only on my tax form where it asked my profession did I say "artist," because that is the way the form is written. But the fact that I would not call myself an artist did not mean that I did not think of my work as art. Whatever I was doing, I was trying to make art. I think of my writing that way too. My heart is the heart of an artist, but I am still working on my craft. When it gets better, maybe I can complete that triangle.

[paprikapink]

My feelings exactly, thank you, ya'll. Let's see what else others have to say about this concept...and also, since obviously we all see ourselves as artists, does it bother you when someone swears up and down that you're not?

Yeah, if I see myself as an artist, or a pioneer, or an anachronism, or a dabbler, or a thoughtful person, or a gardener, or a just about anything I could call myself, and someone laughs and says, "Ha! Boy are you wrong!" then, yeah, I'm going to be bothered.

It undermines my confidence in myself and brings up a few questions, like, what is this person trying to accomplish with this remark?

--Humor? (At my expense -- how much can I budget for this one? Has this person been tapping this acount heavily?)

--Insight? (Saving me from myself? See "undermines" above.)

--Self-aggrandisement? ("I know more about you than you do!" Again, budgetary constraints apply.)

--Maybe this person is an anti-morale artist.

--Perhaps it's the fear talking. (Art, as this thread has clearly established, is not easily quantified or even qualified. Intangible yet powerful. Scary!)

--Maybe it's just someone who engaged the mouth without the brain (most charitable scenario I come up with.)

-pkpk

[Jamesaritchie]

It's not a question of value. As you said, there are good, bad and mediocre artists, and the same goes for art. Sure, people can actually make a living as artists. But if all they wanted was to put some coins in their pocket, they would pick more lucrative (or at least more reliable) professions.

Sure, Bach wrote most of his pieces on the job. But if you asked him about them, somehow I doubt he would point to a spec sheet.

You know that great scene from The Agony and the Ecstasy where Michelangelo is painting the Sistine Chapel and the pope comes into complain? If he were just a house-painter, he would simply say, "You want more blue? OK I paint it more blue. You want a cherub over here? OK I paint a cherub." Michelangelo has his own idea about what it should look like, because he is creating a work of art. He's lucky enough to have a great opportunity and get paid to boot. But his primary motivation is to create something. And perhaps a bit of ego. ;)

I can name any number of writers who decided to be writers solely for the money. Writing may not be lucrative for all who try, but for some it brings in more millions than you'll ever spend.

I was think of all the commisioned portraits many of the great painters did.

Maybe they have an urge to create, maybe not. Again, I don't see where it matters in the least. I suspect a natural, inborn talent is far and away the greatest motivator, not some inborn urge to create, not some inborn urge to make "art."

We all enjoy doing things we're good at, and I've known several people who became painters because they were handed a pencil in art class one day, and the first thing they drew was far above average and drew great praise. I've seen the same thing happen with writer. . .and with athletes.

I don't even like the thought of higher and lower motives, as in teh urge to create versus the desire for money. I don't believe for a second that one is any higher than the other, or that one creates art any better than the other.

Talent and skill create quality, and as far as I'm concerned, art is quality/quality is art. Anything that skips teh talent and skill aspect is not art, I don't care what kind of message it's supposed to send. Message alone is not art. Quality born of talent and skill produces art.

I don't believe art necessarily comes from some "urge" to create, and even if it did, I don't think the phrase has any real meaning. I don't believe for a second that work for hire can't be high art, or that all the creative urges in the world can make something art.

[Jamesaritchie]

Topcat136's definition of an artist: An artist is someone who feels passionately about what he or she is doing enough to consider that task (whatever it may be) art! And that's all I have to say about that.

I think this is exactly what's gone wrong with the modern art world. You no longer have to be any good. You no longer have to have either talent or skill. All you have to do is feel passionately. It doesn't matter whether or not you produce quality or crap, you're a by God artist, jsut so long as you have passion.

Produce crap, but feel pasionately about it, and you're an artist. Produce grandeur, but do so coldly and impassionately, and you're not?

[Jamesaritchie]

I understand the sentiment, but my passport says ARTIST because there's just nothing else it can say.

I've sold four novels to legit publishers; composed music for major software releases, national TV commercials, children's educational toys, New York concert halls (and a decommissioned lightship); written and directed three short films (two won awards; one's just starting the rounds of festivals); and my day job is graphic designer.

What could I possibly call myself besides "artist?" Tell me a better term, and I'll put it on my passport when this one expires.

Don't be ashamed of being an artist. Just try to be a good one.

I think "artist" is a perfectly good term for a passport. I don't use it, but that's just me.

[maestrowork]

Art is subjective, and criteria changes. I still say art is a presentation of something that moves us, evokes emotions and feelings indirectly. Meaning, the artists don't shout out, "hey, you're supposed to feel sad with this piece!"

Why does the Michaelango's Sistine Chapel make people weep?

Why is the Mona Lisa such grand art? It's just a painting of a smiling woman...

When I was in New York I went to the Mets to see the Diane Arbus's exhibit. Afterwards, my friends asked me, "So what do you think?" The word that came out of my mouth was, "Haunting." Those were mostly just photographs of people on the street of New York. But they really touched me in a most subtle and indirect way. It wasn't like Diane Arbus was there to tell me, "Hey, aren't these pictures haunting?"

So sure, if a piece of literature moves me that way, I'll consider it art. But it's entirely subjective.

[Lucky Penny]

It'd been nicer here if this stupid question had never been broached.

It's not caused any damage to speak of, but it is a total waste of bandwidth.

As a newbie here, I just wanted to say that I find this thread very interesting. As you said, it's not causing any damage and it does give us newbies an interesting look into the group we joined. I never would have thought this subject would be such a 'hot' one, but it's so nice to see how politely differences are being discussed. I've been on other boards where such different opinions would have lead to some UGLY discussions.

It was just last night I was talking to a friend of mine and I refered to writers as artists, so it was funny to come on here and find this thread. :)

[rich]

It's only interesting in the sense that good writers are commenting here, and their comments are honest and interesting. But, I'm dissapointed to see that the thread is a "hot" one. It really should be in some new recycling bin--maybe some can that takes digital slush.

[MacAllister]

All in all, after thinking about this for a while, I think I'd rather think of myself as a craftsman.

In part, because "craftsman" implies that success is more about learned skills and applied work ethic, than about native talent.

But I'll still envy the heck out of those writers who have that knack of stringing words together that make me read aloud to savor the taste, and shake my head in admiration. :)

[paprikapink]

Alright, whoz going to step up to the plate and start the Stupid (or perhaps I mean Stipid) Threads thread where folks can go to discuss threads that are beneath them?

-pk

[robeiae]

When I was in New York I went to the Mets to see the Diane Arbus's exhibit.
Was the exhibit in their offices or at the stadium? (ha-ha, just joshin')

The terms artist and art no longer have any consistent meaning...this is clear from all that has been said on this thread. Is Pele an artist (he has been called such)? What about John McEnroe (I mean with the raquet, not the mike)? How about your dentist (man, that guy's an artist with a drill!)? Brain surgeon? All of these people are labeled as artists by others--is what they do art? Then you have the other side of the coin, people who label themselves as artists. I know interior decorators that claim to be artists, as well as landscapers, lawyers, and beauticians. If you want to call yourself an artist, go ahead...if you want to call someone else one, that's fine, too.

This discussion reminds me of Wayne's World (Mike Myers, now there's an artist!):

"I watch alot of television."

"Of course you do, you're creative!"

Rob

[Anatole Ghio]

There seems to be a lot of valuation going on in this thread, and justifiably so because art is a loaded term, one which has been privileged. To create "art" is seen as a valuable endeavor, which is why much of this thread is about debating whether particular instances of art are "art".

To stip the term of its valuation, art is any form of communication not intended to serve any practical utility, and to communicate an abstract thought. There is good art and bad art. Whether you believe something is valuable or not, such as Mapplethorpe or even the most cliche ridden piece of genre writing, has nothing to do with its status as a piece of art.

Art is neither good nor bad.

The larger issue should really be about the girlfriend. Dude, she laughed at your ambition. That is not a good thing.

[LightShadow]

I like the way you think, Rob. You're right. In the end, though, just because you think you are an artist, it shouldn't bother you if somebody else disagrees, because the definition of an artist varies from person to person.

Also, it's funny how some of the responses have been how stupid this thread is. If it's so stupid, then how come there are so many replies?

[brokenfingers]

The larger issue should really be about the girlfriend. Dude, she laughed at your ambition. That is not a good thing.


I don't know the particulars but I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption.

It's a facet of human nature to delude ourselves. Some people are especially adept at this. I've ran into many instances where a person's self view was drastically different from everyone else's perception of them.

Have you ever heard the saying: "He's a legend in his own mind"?

I have a friend who swears every woman who looks his way wants him. So which is crueler:

To say nothing and watch him get angry when she laughs in his face.

Or tell him "Hey buddy - she just wanted a light for her cigarette, for Pete's sake. Get a grip."

If people told me what I'd created wasn't art - who would be right?

Me - who demands that I am an artist?

Or Them - who are unmoved by my work?

Hmmmm.......

[LightShadow]

Now there's a loaded question. Bwah-Hah!
Besides, I don't recall saying this thread was stupid or bad, just that I hated it.Are you saying, like flies, most people gravitate toward poo?

[LightShadow]

I don't know the particulars but I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption.

It's a facet of human nature to delude ourselves. Some people are especially adept at this. I've ran into many instances where a person's self view was drastically different from everyone else's perception of them.

Have you ever heard the saying: "He's a legend in his own mind"?

I have a friend who swears every woman who looks his way wants him. So which is crueler:

To say nothing and watch him get angry when she laughs in his face.

Or tell him "Hey buddy - she just wanted a light for her cigarette, for Pete's sake. Get a grip."

If people told me what I'd created wasn't art - who would be right?

Me - who demands that I am an artist?

Or Them - who are unmoved by my work?

Hmmmm.......Ultimately, I don't care if someone thinks I'm an artist or not, unless it's my gal. That's what got me all bugged in the first place. If Joe Schmoe says I'm a craftsman, fine. If Jane Woe says I'm a crappy writer, fine. If my gal says anything less than the best it chaps my hide. Sounds stupid, because a writer is supposed to be able to handle any criticism, but it's pretty tough coming from the direction that is supposed to be the most supportive.

[paprikapink]

Because he has the "right" answer! Just kidding. I just mean that I agree.

...art is any form of communication not intended to serve any practical utility, and to communicate an abstract thought. There is good art and bad art. Whether you believe something is valuable or not, such as Mapplethorpe or even the most cliche ridden piece of genre writing, has nothing to do with its status as a piece of art.

Art is neither good nor bad.

But 'cept, does this mean that this thread is art? :faint:

The larger issue should really be about the girlfriend. Dude, she laughed at your ambition. That is not a good thing.


Yeah. :mad: Bad girlfriend.

-pk

[Anatole Ghio]

It's a facet of human nature to delude ourselves. Some people are especially adept at this. I've ran into many instances where a person's self view was drastically different from everyone else's perception of them.


I'm not sure how this applies to the examples above. In the case of the girlfriend, it had less to do with any accurate assesment of the original posters talent, and more to do with the disrespect she gave him from the context of his description.

In the case of art, again, there can always be the debate over good and bad, but as long as it serves no immediate utility and communicates an absract thought, it serves as art... good, bad, or ugly.

[Anatole Ghio]

"But 'cept, does this mean that this thread is art? "


This thread has the practical utility of establishing the definition of art. So even though it deals in an abstract concept, it has a practical utility.

This is why science papers couldn't be considered art... there is a practical use meant for them.

[brokenfingers]

I'm not sure how this applies to the examples above. In the case of the girlfriend, it had less to do with any accurate assesment of the original posters talent, and more to do with the disrespect she gave him from the context of his description.

In the case of art, again, there can always be the debate over good and bad, but as long as it serves no immediate utility and communicates an absract thought, it serves as art... good, bad, or ugly.


Hmmmm. I’m not sure I get what you’re saying.

So if a significant other gives you their honest personal opinion and it isn’t the answer you want to hear – they are bad?

I often hear writers complain about giving a piece to spouses for input etc because they receive fluff – mindless praise. As for me I would value a girlfirend who gave me her honest input – whether it sucked or was great – more than one who just agreed with me and said what I wanted to hear.

If she honestly doesn’t feel writing is art – and judging by the comments on this thread, there are a good many people who do - does that mean she isn’t a good partner???

[aboyd]

I often hear writers complain about giving a piece to spouses for input etc because they receive fluff – mindless praise. As for me I would value a girlfirend who gave me her honest input – whether it sucked or was great – more than one who just agreed with me and said what I wanted to hear.

If she honestly doesn’t feel writing is art – and judging by the comments on this thread, there are a good many people who do - does that mean she isn’t a good partner???I think there is difference between asking for a critique of your story and having a person laugh at your self-image. The original post made it sound like the latter. That's not good. That would indeed make her a bad partner. Of course, your interpretation is more reasonable -- she simply doesn't associate literature with the arts. Therefore, she was probably just laughing at the definition, not snickering at his hopes.

All in all, it sounds like a non-issue, but I can see where people could get defensive, even if they are not involved. Her reaction sounded ambiguous.

-Tony

[Celeste]

When I used the word "artist" to describe myself, my significant other laughed, saying that only painters and such are artists. When I looked up artist in the dictionary to prove her wrong, the definition was: One who creates works of art, esp. a painter, sculptor, or musician. She laughed and said "I told you so." So then I looked up art, and finally shut her up when the 4th definition said: "Any field of category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature." Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?

Here's the definition for "artist" from my Illustrated Oxford Dictionary:

One, such as a painter, sculptor, photographer, musician or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.

I believe myself to be an artist, whether it's my photography, or writing.
It doesn't matter to me if others view me as such. Most people I know do view what I do as an art form. The only people (or artists) I've been in debates over this issue with has been with other writers. :Shrug:

[LightShadow]

Here's the definition for "artist" from my Illustrated Oxford Dictionary:

One, such as a painter, sculptor, photographer, musician or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts. A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill. One, such as an actor or singer, who works in the performing arts.

I believe myself to be an artist, whether it's my photography, or writing.
It doesn't matter to me if others view me as such. Most people I know do view what I do as an art form. The only people (or artists) I've been in debates over this issue with has been with other writers. :Shrug:This is the best answer yet, and pretty much says what I've been trying to say all along. By the way, I also agree that just because your partner disagrees with you it doesn't make them a bad partner. Opposites attract for a reason. Her weaknesses may be your strengths and vice versa. So rather than cry about the differences (as I did erroneously when she claimed writing isn't art) we ought to use the differences to an advantage. Her laugh did bug me, though. But only she knows the true intention behind that laugh.

[Coco82]

Writers are definitely artists, as much as a painter or sculptor.

[William Haskins]

this thread makes me want to shove a pencil into my eye and come dance in each of your front yards, screaming:

for god's sake, just write!

[LightShadow]

But is all art that artists put out truly art?

[Mr Underhill]

this thread makes me want to shove a pencil into my eye and come dance in each of your front yards, screaming:

for god's sake, just write!Ah, well that would qualify under performing arts.

:poke:

[LightShadow]

If you shove that pencil in your eye and stand in a frame, that could be art...

[maestrowork]

by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.

That's the thing, though. Thus a poet or a "literary" novelist who literally "paint" with words could be called an artist. But a reporter or someone who doesn't write for "aesthetic value" would be a craftsman. At least according to this definition.

[LightShadow]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

[Sharon Mock]

Thus a poet or a "literary" novelist who literally "paint" with words could be called an artist.

This touches on one of my all-time pet peeves.

The ability to create an aesthetic image (painting, drawing, rendering, etc.) is a fine and noble thing.

The ability to write is a fine and noble thing.

They are not the same. The concept of "painting with words" IMO diminishes both writing and painting.

I hope you realize I'm not directing this at you. I come from an environment (text games) where people who write area descriptions are, in certain circles, described as "painters" because -- yep, they "paint with words." A more infuriating combination of self-denigration and self-aggrandizement I don't think I've ever come across.

I don't describe myself as an artist because most of my circle of friends are visual artists, and I'm so very not. Of course, when I say I'm not an artist they argue with me...

[Fractured_Chaos]

Is a chef an artist?

I would say yes...


http://www.sprinkles.com/images/cake005.jpg

[Fractured_Chaos]

I think defining what "art" is, is as difficult as defining what "love" is. You can't.

I think art, like love, is something that needs to be experienced, before you can even get an idea of it.

[scullars]

I think like any profession... there are two types. There are the artists and the craftmans. Some writers are craftmans. Some are artists. Some are both.

I totally agree.

[KTC]

Art, for me, is something that causes a rush of excitement and exhileration. Now don't go and make me contradict myself by saying, "Well, a traffic accident would cause that too!" You know what I mean when I say it. Something that moves me, be it words, paint, a beautiful cake like the one dragon posted, etc. Art is something created, with a passionate creativity, for the senses. You can argue what I am saying, but this is my definition. The problem with ART, like LOVE, is that we all have different definitions. And that is okay. As long as we recognize this we will be okay. Art is something that moves me. (And no PRUNE jokes, because you know what kind of MOVE I mean.)

[SeanDSchaffer]

When I used the word "artist" to describe myself, my significant other laughed, saying that only painters and such are artists. When I looked up artist in the dictionary to prove her wrong, the definition was: One who creates works of art, esp. a painter, sculptor, or musician. She laughed and said "I told you so." So then I looked up art, and finally shut her up when the 4th definition said: "Any field of category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature." Does it matter to you if you are seen as an artist or not, and if it does, have you had the same difficulty convincing others that you are truly an artist?


...But that's only because I've done both artwork and writing. As such I've felt the need to differentiate between the two. Personally, I find no problem with considering artwork and writing two separate things, even though they are, in effect, the same. But this is only for my own reasons, not for practical ones.

To be honest, I think it takes more to write something than it does to draw something. A good drawing can take, say, eight hours to complete. How long does a good novel take? I can almost assure you it's not eight hours. Maybe eight weeks at a bare minimum, but not eight hours.

Besides that, I've always seen the 'writer=artist' thing in the light of the cliche movie director who calls himself an 'artiste.' It kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, so for that reason also, I tend to differentiate between the two.

But that's just me. I think one would only have to look at what a writer actually does (creating worlds and societies; making up characters; tying story ends together; etc.) to realize that writing is, in fact, an art form. Art takes patience and perseverance. It takes creativity and skill. These are what make writing an art form, despite the fact that many (myself included) would feel the need to separate the two.

So with me it's just a matter of personal choice to make the distinction. I know that technically, writing is in fact an art form.
:o

[Note On]

I get what everybody's saying about those distasteful stereotypes; but I really have to wonder why I'd bother reading a novel written by somebody who was only aiming for "craft."

[BlueTexas]

Can't craft be beautiful too? You have to have a story before you can apply craft to it.

Writers write. Who cares about the stereotypes? We're past The Breakfast Club.

[brokenfingers]

I get what everybody's saying about those distasteful stereotypes; but I really have to wonder why I'd bother reading a novel written by somebody who was only aiming for "craft."

Unless all you read is hardcore literary fiction, I can pretty much guarantee that not one bestselling author considered themselves to be creating art when they wrote their books.

All they did was write and tell a story that people would want to read.

They crafted a novel....

[maestrowork]

There's nothing wrong with "craft." Are you saying "artists" are better than "craftsmen"? I don't really buy that...

[oswann]

Art is a big umbrella term under which mant things have sought shelter. As we have seen in this thread alone (from cakes to impaled eyeballs). It is a neverending merry-go-round of exclusivity if we all start (again, I mean I'm having flashbacks to the eighties for the art/craft debate, some a little older than I should be having flashbacks to the seventies) to say what deserves to be in and what doesn't.

If cake baking called itself carpentry and carpentry called itself contemporary dance, apart from being a little confusing it wouldn't really change too much. If writing words on a page is called the same word as pissing in a jar, so be it. Confusing, but what isn't?

The questions of beauty or lyricism or good taste over bad are entirely subjective, and have been argued over ad infinitum in art schools for the past thirty years (at the detriment of doing more useful things IMO). When the discussion turns into amateur sociology, as is the case in a large number of Western tertiary education establishments, I quietly leave reaching for the vomit bag on the way out.

Agree to disagree, or whatever. The thread started, if I remember with a comment about how one is perceived, artist or not. If you are perceived as the village idiot and you know you are writing the best possible prose, what does this make you?



Os.

[Note On]

Unless all you read is hardcore literary fiction, I can pretty much guarantee that not one bestselling author considered themselves to be creating art when they wrote their books.

Oh, can you, now? You're in the heads of bestselling authors? And you know what they think the word "art" means?

All they did was write and tell a story that people would want to read.

They crafted a novel....

Sort of like crafting birdhouses, then. All we're aiming for is nice, square parts that fit together.

Are you saying "artists" are better than "craftsmen"? I don't really buy that...

The phrase "artists are better than craftsmen" means nothing to me.

I think it's very clear to almost anyone not engaged in this kind of debate that art is usually not solely "craft." Look up the relevant definitions:

- the skilled practice of a practical occupation
- skill in an occupation or trade
- make by hand and with much skill

Then look up "art."

- the creation of beautiful or significant things
- the products of human creativity

Craft means you're repeating what has gone before--by definition. That's what it is. It's technique. Put as many techniques together as you like--it's still not a novel, and certainly not a good one.

All this "craft of the novel" stuff really takes over the minds of people on writers' boards. Yes, there is plenty of craft involved--but by itself, it's completely useless. Nobody wants to read a novel if the best anybody can say about it is "there were no faults in technique." That's code for "it's boring" -- about the worst thing you can say about any work of art. It's even worse than "I hated it."

I'm not denigrating craft. It's necessary if you don't want to suck. But it's the bare minimum requirement. Nobody will publish a book merely because the plot made sense, the characters are consistent, and the spelling and grammar are good. They'll likely reject a book if those things aren't present, but their presence is not why anyone wants to read a book.

The art form is capable of supporting beauty, significance, and creativity; capable of changing how people see the world and themselves, or delighting them, or touching them profoundly. It has boundaries that can be found and pushed so my preconceptions as a reader (and as a human being) are challenged. It can make me see. It can show me truth. If all you're aiming for is "craft," well, more power to you and I hope you get a big advance--but why would I bother reading it?

[oswann]

I think some people are comparing apples to oranges. To craft, the verb, used in this sense to imply the making of something with a degree of competence, and craft, as in the art/craft debate.

I'm not going to go into the history of Western Art and the emergence of craft from other cultures in it, but needless to say it doesn't have much to do with writing a good book.


Os.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I dunno. That line between "craft" and "art" seems to be pretty blurry, and subject to the feelings of the person observing the finished product, rather than what the creator of that product might think.

Like a cabinet maker. He can kick out 30-50 beautifully built, solid cabinets a day. They'll last forever, and they might all look alike or they might not. But another cabinet maker can do the same thing, and have the same quality of product, but add little embelishes in a different way, and make something that will take your breath away. Maybe it's nothing major. Maybe cabinet maker B uses different hinges, or a different type of wood, or a different finish than A uses. Maybe it's just the way he combines these things.

They're both capable and talented, and they both put out a quality product that will last a lifetime. But you look at cabinet maker A's work, and think, good, solid cabinets, and are satisfied. You look at cabinet maker B's work, and are left speechless.

Cabinet maker B then becomes an artist in your eyes, because of how you see his work.

[veinglory]

I read a lot of well crafted novels that are not arty/literary (e.g. erotica, westerns, genre romances, sword and sandal fantasy). I read them for entertainment not insight into the human condition. I aspire to write them. For me craft is more important than art and I do not aspire to be an artist or particularly value artisitic writing. I aspire to be a 'hack'.

[Fractured_Chaos]

I read a lot of well crafted novels that are not arty/literary (e.g. erotica, westerns, genre romances, sword and sandal fantasy). I read them for entertainment not insight into the human condition. I aspire to write them. For me craft is more important than art and I do not aspire to be an artist or particularly value artisitic writing. I aspire to be a 'hack'.

See, I don't see it that way. It doesn't have to be literary to be considered "art" IMO. I've read some genre fiction that was incredible, and I would consider it art. One of the most moving scenes I ever read was in a Star Trek novel, of all places.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is considered by many to be art, but that is, without question, "genre" fiction.

The books that are destined to be come classics, whether genre or literary, could be considered art, to me.

And veinglory, I certainly do NOT consider you a "hack". ;)

[aka eraser]

We all have 26 letters and punctuation doohickeys with which we work to construct words that convey thoughts.

That takes craft.

Whether the resulting arrangement is deemed art or not is for others to say. Their opinion matters little to me in that sense. I just want people to read my work and feel the experience was worthwhile and not a waste of their time.

[imaginelane]

Crafting and art are completely intertwined and both are creations. I do both every day and I am quite certain of what I am doing. I do not blunder through it, nor do I wonder if my crafting is truly art. Attempts to differentiate between the two involve trying to make one, art, above the other, craft, in some way. It just isn't above. They are just title words. Making a sculpture from iron is considered blacksmithing, which is called a craft. Making a sculpture from clay is considered sculpturing which is called an art. Just words until someone tries to paint a picture with words to describe a painter/one who draws as an elevated artist.
Writing is either you want to name it, I'd say. Crafting a story together or using words to make a story. All in how you think of it. I find F. Scott Fitzgerald to be quite artsy in his writing. But then again, is it not a craft to be able to do that? In any way of thinking, he created the stories, and crafting and art are both creatingl.

[reph]

If you are perceived as the village idiot and you know you are writing the best possible prose, what does this make you?
Misunderstood.

[Mike Martyn]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

Except when there's a pencil sticking out of it.

[brokenfingers]

Oh, can you, now? You're in the heads of bestselling authors? And you know what they think the word "art" means?

LOL! I never said I knew what they think art is. I just said that in all the books I’ve read on published authors (and in order to learn the craft of writing, this is one of the things I did – read up on those already walking the path I also choose to walk) – not one of them ever called themselves an artist.

Does anyone here know of any instance where a published bestselling author publicly called themselves an artist or their work art?

Please copy the link or pertinent info and provide it here.


Allow me to explain myself a bit and why I consider myself a craftsman. You see, to me it’s not about the writing – no, not at all.

It’s about the story. The writing is a just a means to an end.

My main objective is not to write well, but to tell a good story. The words and their particular placement and selection? These are merely the tools I use to create my story. The tools I use to create new worlds for others to enter and experience.

I don’t believe in words – but I do believe in ideas and dreams and the desire and ability to share these things with others.

In order to tell my story, in order to share my dream with others, in a way that will reach as many people as possible I must learn how to wield these tools – and wield them well.

Like a craftsman, I must learn to use my tools - these words - as effectively as possible so that I can build a portal for others to enter my world. A safe haven for them to escape from the harsh glare of reality for awhile.

For me to say that my writing makes me an artist is like a sculptor saying that his hammers and chisels make him an artist. Ha!

To me, it isn’t the act of creating that makes one an artist – but the creation itself.

For a sculptor it is the sculpture that determines whether or not he is an artist.

And so for a writer, it is the story that determines whether or not they are an artist.

It is the creations of those who sing, who paint, who sculpt, who write – these are the things that make them artists. The paintings, the songs, the sculptures, the stories – they determine who is an artist. Once we are done creating them, then they must stand on their own merit, before the world and be judged.

And if you were able to take a part of yourself and instill it in your creation and the world sees it, hears it, touches it, reads it – not just on the outside, but on the inside on a fundamental level - then they will breathe a sigh and say:

This is truly art.

Art is not just a statement by an individual. You don’t make it, plop it down on the counter and say: Here, this is art.

Art speaks for itself.


It is an intangible something that touches us deeply within. When you look upon art, you know that it was not just the end result of skill, intellect, craftmanship, form, learning etc.

You know - deep within, where no words are ever spoken - that there is another element at work here. Some call it divine, some God, some the Muse, but whatever you term it – it sings within you and sings within all who encounter it – and you know that this is what it means to be human.


This is what we will never be able to bottle or distill or extract. This is what separates us from the animal world. This is the result of having a soul and allowing it to express itself.

It is the inner soul of one human being speaking to the inner soul of another – on a level deeper than the one we normally inhabit.

And if I ever create something like this, it will not be because I thought: Hmm a little bit of this, a little bit of that….that should do it.

Nor will it be because I said: Here world, here it is. My art.

It will be because I was able to tap that inner power that we all have within ourselves and was able to transfer it to the page – and others will see it and their inner selves will see it and recognize it and where it came from and feel a reaction.

Then, maybe, if my story touches their soul and makes it sing, then maybe I can say I’m an artist and I’ve created art.

But until then, I’ll just sit here at my desk - writing away, sharpening my tools and honing my craft….

[Celeste]

''To evoke in oneself a feeling one has once experienced and having evoked it in oneself then by means of movements, lines, colours, sounds, or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling -- this is the activity of art.

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them.

-- Leo Tolstoy on "What is Art?"

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Out of curiosity:

1) What do y'all think about Uncle Jim's definition of "art" from the Learn Writing thread? "The way to tell the difference between the real world and art is that art has borders."

2) For those of y'all who feel that this thread is a waste of time and makes you want to perform rash acts of self-destruction: What compells you to say so, rather than to just pass the thread by and leave it to those who are apparently having a great time participating in it?

[oswann]

Out of curiosity:

1) What do y'all think about Uncle Jim's definition of "art" from the Learn Writing thread? "The way to tell the difference between the real world and art is that art has borders."

2) For those of y'all who feel that this thread is a waste of time and makes you want to perform rash acts of self-destruction: What compells you to say so, rather than to just pass the thread by and leave it to those who are apparently having a great time participating in it?


UJ's definition is accurate and the reason why writing is an interesting artform for me. When art loses its parameters it spirals into the ridiculous.


Os.

[oswann]

Misunderstood.

In response to the start of the thread. It doesn't make any difference what people think of you. It doesn't make any difference either what you call yourself. Writer, author, scribbler, artist, whatever.

Writing is an activity in which the boundaries are clearly defined. They are not difficult to understand. Comparing yourself to them, seeking advice from those who use them well, then applying them to your own work is more important than pondering over what to call yourself, or what you are called by others. It's like wondering if you write better with a red shirt on or a blue one.


Os.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

I consider myself a writer, or author, not an artist. I have no problem with other writers calling themselves authors, but that's just not what I consider myself to be. *shrug*