Are you and Artist, or an Entertainer

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

I’ve been writing for years, never officially published, (*yet*), and I find myself on the brink of a fascinating discovery. I want to tell the world what goes on in my head, what I see in my mind's eye. I love that. I love the smiles I get when I release something that gets a chuckle or a pause. Whether by Poems or Articles, I seem to get the same response. I find myself, loving to entertain through my prose.



I’ve been a column writer for a long time, doing a blog at work called "It Always Seems", I get a lot of responses, and people really like my work. My editor keeps telling me to send it to magazines and newspapers, but I really do it just so my co workers can laugh, so I can have more time unimpeded to write my novels. If I was web savvy, I would have built a website.

Some of my buddies that know I have finished my Novel keep asking to see it or read it, but most are just exited that I did it. I’m in the editing process now and 160K is a lot to run through. Almost done, query ready, and a published author to coach me in the process. Many thanks to this guy; he is a real find in today’s market.



I find myself on the edge of the artist and the entertainer, wanting to share my fascinating reflections with the populace, but retain my artistic craft.



What would you rather be?



An Artist, or an Entertainer? Or are they in fact, the same thing, as they are in my mind?

[MadScientistMatt]

An entertainer - or a teacher in the case of non-fiction.

If I can write fiction and my readers tell me they enjoyed it a lot, that would be the best sort of praise I would want. I'd rather be consided a hack writer whose books are fun to read than a true artist that normal people do not enjoy reading.

I see the number one purpose of fiction as to entertain, and the number one purpose of the nonfiction book I'm working on as to inform. And if I can work some deeper themes into fiction, so much the better - and it's probably more entertaining.

Maybe this is because I really did not enjoy a lot of books that were required reading in high school.

[Ace]

Personally, I think the only difference between artist and entertainer is your audience. Artists are entertainers, but, perhaps, they entertain themselves or critics. What is art if not entertainment? It appeals to a part of our mind, thus entertaining us.

[write4details]

Yes. Artists are entertainers. People like critics who try to sell the proposition that Art is more than that, is more than creating beauty or feeling (and requiring their help to know the difference) do great harm.

Not the least of which is a jillion kids sweating out whether they are really artists or not.

Don't EVEN get around to the real quandry....are you an artist or a professional?

That's where people REALLY come unscrewed.

[scribbler1382]

Entertainment can be generated as a by-product of art, but I don't believe it is and of itself, entertainment. Let's face it, watching a sculptor chip away at a block of marble for weeks on end is right up their with watching grass grow. Even if, once he's done, we find great joy in his sculpture.

[pixiejuice]

I think it depends on the kind of person, as Ace was saying. The emotional reaction I have to art is, to me, completely entertaining. Entertainment for the mind. And of course, the entertainment that art provides in literature can also be accompanied by plot-based entertainment (excitement, humor, drama...). Those, I think, are the best stories.

Artist or entertainer? I want to be both. I don't think it's too much to strive for.

So, Jonny, yes, they can be the same thing if you want them to be.

[write4details]

Apparently "That's Entertainment" has distorted the concept of the word among the young.

No watching a sculptor is not fun. Nor is watching a writer write or a painter mix colors.

And none of that stuff is art either....art is the result of those activities. The book, movie, painting, sculpture, etc. entertain people. Not the process. You see the difference, right?

Oh, btw if you don't find appreciating a piece of sculpture to be enterainment, perhaps you have a better definition?

[Jamesaritchie]

If your work doesn't entertain, it is, at best, lousy art. I'd rather be a writer, and leave question of A versus E to readers. Particularly readers of future generations.

[Jamesaritchie]

Entertainment can be generated as a by-product of art, but I don't believe it is and of itself, entertainment. Let's face it, watching a sculptor chip away at a block of marble for weeks on end is right up their with watching grass grow. Even if, once he's done, we find great joy in his sculpture.

Actually, I find watching sculpters at work highly entertaining. Far more so than watching writers at work.

But I don't think watching the person at work has anything to do with whether or not they entertain people. That's an odd way to look at it.

It's whether or not the finished works entertains people that matters. If it doesn't entertain in some way, what good is it?

[write4details]

Particularly readers of future generations

It's good to see a little optimism about the idea that future generations will be able to read.

[scribbler1382]

Actually, I find watching sculpters at work highly entertaining. Far more so than watching writers at work.

But I don't think watching the person at work has anything to do with whether or not they entertain people. That's an odd way to look at it.

It's whether or not the finished works entertains people that matters. If it doesn't entertain in some way, what good is it?

I don't disagree with you, James. What I was trying to say (apparently poorly) was that art is art from the inception of the idea to create something, all the way through the process of creation to the finished piece. Art is in the artist's vision and choices, both of what to do and what not to do. But while "art" is all of it, the enjoyment and "entertainment" typically comes on the showing of the final product.

[WriteRead]

I'm a writer, first and foremost. When I'll be published I'll be an author.

Never thought about myself as an entertainer, but an artist. I write how and what I please. I always think about what I have to say and try to say it in an intelligible way w/o thinking about the audience. If in the process of exposure to some audience my art hits a chord in the reader's soul, or heart, or both, then I'd consider it entertainment.

Why? B/c my art gave h/er/im a moment or more of some kind of satisfaction, and this is entertainment.

I know that in the proposal (for F or NF) I'll have to mention the market for the bk. Let me get there, first, and I'll think about it then, no problem. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

Dan

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

I think we all agree that the nature of writing is to one day share these ideas with others, (and make a little cheese in the process.) I only hope that my ideas will become the entertianment to others, that they have been for me.

[J. Y. Moore]

Timing and intent -- During creation, one must be an artist, adept in the linguistic construction of mental imagery. Since there are many reasons one might perform these exercises -- from self-exorcism to, yes, self-entertainment or the entertainment of others -- one's intent determines whether the writer/author is, then, both an artist and entertainer or just and artist. (I suppose, in the case of self-exorcism, one would not even need to be an artist.)

Personally, I find it impossible to conceive the notion that one could be an entertainer without being an artist to at least some degree.

[Paint]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]If your work doesn't entertain, it is, at best, lousy art.

I disagree with this statement. You may not like Japenese Art. Someone else may like it very much. Some art teaches and is painful, like some of the Master's work.
Of course entertainers are artists. Actors and musicians may take offense in hearing there is an 'or.'
My art whether I am painting or writing is what I am that day. Teacher, Comic, in pain, entertainer, whatever I am that day, that moment.
Paint

[Jamesaritchie]

[QUOTE=Jamesaritchie]If your work doesn't entertain, it is, at best, lousy art.

I disagree with this statement. You may not like Japenese Art. Someone else may like it very much. Some art teaches and is painful, like some of the Master's work.
Of course entertainers are artists. Actors and musicians may take offense in hearing there is an 'or.'
My art whether I am painting or writing is what I am that day. Teacher, Comic, in pain, entertainer, whatever I am that day, that moment.
Paint

Nothing entertains everyone, but Japanese art certainly entertains those who like it. Those it doesn't entertain don't look at it. I find most Japanese art exceedingly dull and uninteresting. To me, dull and uninterestingis the opposite of entertaining. So I seldom look at it.

To be honest, I don't think anyone cares a whit what we are, yesterday, today, or tomorrow. And they shouldn't. It matters not in the least what I am on a given day, and I think this is the mistake that's pretty much made a laughing stock of much modern "art."

There's this really weird, really modern nothion that "art" is about the artist.

There is no "or." Unlesss the "or" is "No good at what you do, so you call yourself an artist."

The point is, it makes no difference at all what we call ourselves. Just because a person claims to be an artist does not in any way mean what he creates is art, or is even good enough for the local landfill. Calling yourself an artist does not in any way bestow talent, vision, or ability. Unfortunately, the elitist view for many years has been that something is worthwhile art simply because it was created by someone who labels himself an artist.

I think this is nonsense. Real art is about the finished product, not about who or what created the product.

I do think great art does more than entertain. It also informs. But it also takes talent, something I've found darned few "artits" possess, and the louder they proclaim themselves artist, the lower the talent quotient usually is.

I will always maintain that if you have to call yourself an artist, you aren't one. If you are one, you never have to call yourself one, or even think about it one way or the other.

The work has to speak for itself, and calling yourself an artist does not in any way produce art.

[Kiva Wolfe]

Multiple-choice quiz, somewhat like are you an actor or are you a movie star? Hmm, I usually do better on True or False, but I will take a straddling stab at it. As a writer, I am by nature artistic. I would like to be an entertaining author. Always, I think of myself as a storyteller.

[brokenfingers]

c) none of the above

I'm a hack...

[Sunny7L]

I would have to say an artist -- a creator. An entertainer is a performer.

[aruna]

[QUOTE=Paint]



The point is, it makes no difference at all what we call ourselves. Just because a person claims to be an artist does not in any way mean what he creates is art, or is even good enough for the local landfill. Calling yourself an artist does not in any way bestow talent, vision, or ability. Unfortunately, the elitist view for many years has been that something is worthwhile art simply because it was created by someone who labels himself an artist.

I think this is nonsense. Real art is about the finished product, not about who or what created the product.

I do think great art does more than entertain. It also informs. But it also takes talent, something I've found darned few "artits" possess, and the louder they proclaim themselves artist, the lower the talent quotient usually is.

I will always maintain that if you have to call yourself an artist, you aren't one. If you are one, you never have to call yourself one, or even think about it one way or the other.

The work has to speak for itself, and calling yourself an artist does not in any way produce art.

This is close to my own view. To the sentence that art must do more than entertain, it must also inform, I would add, it must also inspire and/or uplift, fulfill, satisfy, nourish, replenish, enlighten; all of which are more than mere entertainment, and all of which I would love to do.

However, I do believe that who the artist is that makes or breaks the art. Not who his/her ego is, but how readily the artist can be a medium for whatever it is s/he is creating. That is why you are right when you say s/he does not call herself the artist. Where the art comes from, remains a mystery; so the true artist is always humble.

[mdmkay]

Well, I know I'm an artist.........purely because I've been a professional artist for quite awhile but I cheat.....I paint and do digital art

As for writing........I perfer to think of myself as a storyteller to be honest and in some cases educator

My question is am I an author........ok to be an author some think you must be published........the 2 with PA doesn't count except that I'm proud I finished the projects (when I finish a book it makes me proud no matter what happens with it afterwards)...the question I have is are you published if your things are accepted and distributed in public transcripts (mag, web, etc) for free or do you have to have paid a large amount? For example I have a site that I believe in Holistic Junction that I contribute self-help articles for women I have one article that has been downloaded maybe a 200 times by now.......I haven't gotten a penny because its a free info site...........but my article and byline are show up in alot of places............so am I still a writer or am I actually an author.......one of my poems one first place in one of their contests????????

The art stuff really is so much easy. If you draw a straight line on a canvas and someone hangs it up......Whalla you're an artist (I've done a bit better than that...sold, gallery, a very small museum even).
Please excuse the roughness of this post I'm waaaaaaaaay past my bedtime here.

[J. Y. Moore]

I, too, am a visual artist of more years than I care to relate, and I'll go along with the storyteller part; however, you must be an artist, albeit a linguistic one, in order to: #1 create an original, coherent, cohesive story that, #2 is entertaining enough to hold the attention your audience, the reader. In order to accomplish #2, you must be able to paint verbal images (execute #1) well enough that the reader (shall we call him/her a sort of linguistic art connoisseur?!) becomes immeshed in the story -- loving, hating, worrying about, lamenting over your characters -- artfully leaving him/her breathlessly waiting for more (in the terms of the art world -- wanting a companion piece[s] to fill out the collection).

Now, if I can just get this first one on the shelves and to my audience, I'm ready for the collectors to beg for seconds/thirds/h---, I'm not picky, any number thereafter I'll gratefully create!

J. Y. (Jean) Moore
http://www.woodwareandmooreart.com/FineArtGallery.htm