Artist???

[Ross Macintosh]

In a recent thread I was described by someone as an "artist". I certainly don't think of myself that way. I thought I'd start this thread to see if others would share their thoughts about what an artist is and isn't.

I see myself as a "designer" and my drawings as illustrations rather than "art". I rely on skills I've developed rather than "talent". I believe practically speaking that anybody can develop the same skills I have if they are motivated and persistant. I have no doubt that my skills do not represent a very high benchmark - others can and of course do surpass my skills.

When I went to architectural school if any student "signed" their drawings (as an artist would) they would be publically humilated by the professors. It was viewed as pretentious and it was suggested that the point was not to create an artifact but to communicate. Making it "art" was seen as putting up a barrier. Maybe that education really screwed me up! (That wouldn't surprise me!).

I hope others have ideas to share on this subject of what makes someone an artist.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[Ross Macintosh]

In a recent thread I was described by someone as an "artist". I certainly don't think of myself that way. I thought I'd start this thread to see if others would share their thoughts about what an artist is and isn't.

I see myself as a "designer" and my drawings as illustrations rather than "art". I rely on skills I've developed rather than "talent". I believe practically speaking that anybody can develop the same skills I have if they are motivated and persistant. I have no doubt that my skills do not represent a very high benchmark - others can and of course do surpass my skills.

When I went to architectural school if any student "signed" their drawings (as an artist would) they would be publically humilated by the professors. It was viewed as pretentious and it was suggested that the point was not to create an artifact but to communicate. Making it "art" was seen as putting up a barrier. Maybe that education really screwed me up! (That wouldn't surprise me!).

I hope others have ideas to share on this subject of what makes someone an artist.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[ajreed]

Isn't it what the respective person attempts to put into their work?

Given a scene, real or imaginary, the artist will put on paper their interpretation of what they see. It will not (by definition) be an accurate representation, either by colour or detail, but will be their (own personal) interpretation of the scene in front of them.

The illustrator (architect, graphic artist) will spend a lot of time trying to be as faithful to the original as their skill allows. Personal interpretation will be excluded at all cost. Content accuracy will rule supreme.

With my technical drawing background I am a stickler for detail and accuracy. For me a photograph or drawing will always be preferable to a painting. I agree paintings have their place but as objects of beauty rather than as conveyors of information.

My wife on the other hand is completely the opposite, loves painting, has no time for drawing illustrations or computers. The two don't seem to go together. She is a much better painter than I will ever be, and vice versa (and my addiction needs no consumables [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] )

Anyway - bit heavy for a Sunday evening - but a refreshing change to ponder the meaning of life, the universe and everything.....

Look forward to others views.

[a4hire]

Well if you ask Merriam Webster you will get this definition:

Main Entry: art·ist
Pronunciation: 'är-tist
Function: noun
Date: circa 1507
1 a obsolete : one skilled or versed in learned arts b archaic : PHYSICIAN c archaic : ARTISAN
2 a : one who professes and practices an imaginative art b : a person skilled in one of the fine arts
3 : a skilled performer; especially : ARTISTE
4 : one who is adept at something <con artist> <strikeout artist>

I would say from seeing some of your work that has been posted in the forums that you qualify as an Artist. Maybe more of a modern artist or a digital artist.
So what is art ?
Merriam says:

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
Date: 13th century
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. CRAFT may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

Now from this definition , whether you are a painter or architect or illustrator you are still an artist. Or as is said around here a Xartist
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[ajreed]

But another thought. Bruce - your explanation carries some weight. There is a skill undoubtedly involved in both, but my other post is supported by

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but clearly we could ramble on for eons about the subtleties of the various definitions.

I see the use of tools like Xara and other computer based offerrings as being used not by artists per se, rather than by illustrators who are attempting something different to what an artist (by my definition) is trying.

The old man who flashes on your screen as Xara wakes up is undoubtedly a masterpiece, more becoming of an artist than an illustrator. I think the creator has leanings towards artist rather than illustrator, and I would have thought his (her) skills would have be better deployed with paint brushes and real paper.

It puzzles me when so much effort is made using Xara to attempt to produce what looks like a real painting, rather than to use Xaras features to produce an illustration almost impossible to create using conventional painting techniques.

Something suggests there are some frustrated 'artists' in this forum, trying for example to create eyes (see other thread). Whats the point? Why not get out your paint brushes where I am sure the end result would be both better and easier to achieve. Or perhaps I am missing the point, in that given a computer, loaded with Xara, there is this 'I can do just as well with Xara as you can with your brushes' mentality that drives us Xartists along!

For me though, Xara will always be the means by which i will satisfy my urges to create technically attractive illustration. Should I ever develop tendencies towards attempting artistic renditions, I'll go downstairs and pinch my wifes' paints brushes and paper. (but you'll never see what a mess I make with those!) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

All this typing!!!!! Perhaps I'm a frustrated journalist!! I hope not. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[joroho]

Ross,

In your case, I see a little easier distinction. Your sketches are truly works of art, hence I would call you an artist that can also do wonderful computer-generated illustrations.

As for me, well... I'd rather not use the term that best describes my "artistic" ability.

.joroho.

[Ross Macintosh]

Bruce - I don't think the artist vs. illustrator distinction you make regarding personal interpretation and accuracy are valid. While high realism may be the goal of some illustrators I don't think it is supremely important to many.

I'm inclined to think the distinction between artists and illustrators has much more to do with intent than technique. When Jens drew his salt & pepper shakers I think the drawing is about the design of the shakers and their holder. The drawing doesn't just accurately show us the design, it presents it, and helps us understand his design intentions - regarding the design of the shakers themselves. This intent differs from a still-life image an artist might create of the same shakers. While the artist might love the shakers, the artwork is more about the artwork itself than the shakers. Both the illustrator and the artist's work can features similar composition and identical technique. Both are interpreting what they see (or imagine). I don't think the illustrator is any less an interpretor. I know artists and illustrators who intellectualize their work - artists have no monopoly on that!

When an illustrator "interprets" I think they are trying to figure out how to most effectively represent, within their skills, the design idea. The artist's focus I think is much more on the art object they are producing.

Norman Rockwell's images are perhaps America's most loved. His paintings, although loved by the masses, are ignored by the art establishment because he is viewed by them as an illustrator. The editor calls: "Norman, Mother's Day is coming up soon - give me something by next tuesday that will bring a tear to America's eyes". Norman of course delivered what he was paid to do. His work is highly competent, sensitive, and powerful. To the public he was a real artist. I'm not judgemental about it, but I believe he was indeed an illustrator.

I don't know where these thoughts are leading - except to bed. It is late here in Nova Scotia and I have to work tomorrow. Goodnight.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[qmr]

Interesting points Ross, on an ages-old issue. I tend to side with William Morris in that art (brush, indifferent hair, drinking habit) and craft (rotring pen, tie, drinking habit) are inextricably linked. Some artists sneer at other artists, decrying them as 'mere illustrators'. Other artists think Marcel Duchamp (with or without urinal) was/is a bad influence.. Reading Artforum and other "Art" magazines is not much help as "Art" language used there tends to obfuscate the message, and makes the simple complex. I've always believed the vice versa.. art should try to make the the complex simple as it is about communication.. communicating the artists perception of the world, animate or inanimate in a clear fashion. The clarity may be crystal to the viewer or coded to the artists desire to express himself in a personal language that is understood by only a few.. the 'inner circle' who take the time to understand the artists language. Think of a comparison of Renoir and Picasso and their respective paintings of nudes. The former painting his reactions to shape, light, form, beauty; the latter painting more personal thoughts - inner/darker perceptions of the model.. The former artist is crystal clear, the latter more coded. But both painted their perception of the subject, and communicated this in paint. Renoir was at the time radical in his sketchy style and brush (sorry) with impressionism, and of course Picasso with Braque was radical. Still is for me. But both painted for an audience, as a illustrator/designer designs for an audience, using the techniques of drawing/painting, the same lessons in different schools. This is where Morris is right. But while the illustration deals with the practical considerations of what the thing looks like, and conveys the beauty, sensation etc of the thing to the viewer, it is a depersonalised view. The artist personalises, making an emotional/psychological/neurotic communication of an extraordinary or ordinary event/place/time. One is art as journalism, the other is art as short story. Both are valid, and serve different purposes, although both are telling a story. Ability to draw/design/animate in xara etc has nothing to do with it.

Q.
<font size="1">"wha-- coffee break??"

whizzzzz</font>
http://www.Qdesign.co.nz

[Big Frank]

Art is subjective, not objective, so trying to hold an analytical discussion like this one is pointless and futile. I think Damien Hirst's stuff is crap, but other people would say that my reaction to what he does in itself proves that it is art because it generates an emotional reaction from me. Whatever...

Stop talking about it and do it! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

--
Big Frank was
http://www.wognum.org/files/madewithxarax.gif

[Turan]

I think, like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder.

Everyone on these pages have drawn things to be viewed and/or sold and appreciated by others.

The fact we have done it rather than use off-the-self clipart makes us artist.