Is she really 'an artist', or is she just crap?

[Nandocushion]

I met my friend a few years ago and she told me, early on, that she was an artist. She didn't talk much more about it, and she was always short of money (if not in fact 'starving'), so I didn't really question it.

More recently, she's told me the rather sad history of her art career, and it was as follows: went to art school, had approximately 15 shows, never sold anything. Not. A. Thing.

She is now 30 years out of art school and has never sold a piece of art. She feels that critics have been biased.

I haven't seen her art. I have no idea what it is like, but I do assume that over the course of THIRTY YEARS, if she was good, someone would have noticed. And I also think, that if you have never ever ever made any sort of money, not even pennies, off being an artist, then maybe it's time you stopped calling yourself "an artist". Am I BU?

I don't have any opinions about artists. I just believe that a bit of realism should accompany it, if you are not at all successful.

'What happens to his work after he's dead is of little interest to me as I won't be there'

But that is the magic thing about art. Humans leave their creations behind when they have long disappeared. St. Paul's cathedral becomes the architect;s gift to teh whole nation for time immemorial. Elvis Presley will never die though his bones will turn to dust.

"When J.K. Rowling was on the dole writing her first novel, was she not a writer? When she was slogging her guts out writing that book, was she not creating a work of art? Is it only when it sold millions that she then became a writer. "

JK Rowling gave up her teaching career to write HP.. btw

Argh.. this whole thing pissed me off. WHy do you have to be earning money to be classed as an Artist? There are plenty of very good artists/musicians/writers that earn fuck all. I know a superb musician who had a stint in a VERY famous band, produced an album for another VERY famous band. He's incredible.. but he's poor as fuck. Doesn't mean he's not an artist.

OP - if you'd seen her art and it was shite then you might have a point about what she calls herself.. but yo haven't.

I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that selling your work for money is the only measure of success for someone in an artistic field. Actually, many of those who make the most money are simply those whose work appeals most to the taste of the masses. It's not necessarily the best, artistically. Many of those who are really the best in their artistic field are teaching in academia as "the masses" don't want their specialised, groundbreaking work.

No, but you'd expect them to have sold one piece of work in a 30 year 'career'.

I never meant to denigrate truly talented painters, writers, musicians etc (the term 'artist' irks a bit as it's not specific. What kind of art?) I do understand how hard a life it is and I have had success in my own fields of art, including being flown to New York to exhibit, being published and reviewed in the national press and running a poetry imprint where each edition sold out and am presently turning down commissions due to lack of time. I guess I am a humble type who just refers to myself by my bread and butter 9-5 job but a lot of my friends actually think that's weird and I should bleat on about my 'art'.

I just can't imagine calling myself an artist. I think I have known too many talentless trustefarians who consider sending an email requesting a gig and having a ten minute 'jam' on the guitar a full days work.

I hate the idea that artists are special. Someone mentioned the words 'iconoclasts', 'rebels' etc. No they're not! They're normal people. I'm a normal person. I don't think I'm of another world.

We do need a healthy arts scene but all my favourite art takes place on the fringes and is created by people in other jobs doing it because they love it and remaining humble.

At the same time I do have friends who literally won't do anything but paint/ write and I do understand that but they are truly talented and work hard at getting commissions.

ditziness - I agree that everyone's creative, or an'artist' of sorts.
MincePie - in my book of judgments about those describing themselves as 'artists' (and as you can see i am very judgmental about this, yet entirely fair, i feel...) I consider that those working in academia are entirely mitigated, absolved, even... since that clearly does demonstrate that they 'understand' there art.
I'm with Mill re. flakey notion of 'artists' as 'iconoclasts', etc. What a load of bollocks, it smacks far to much of self-deluding trust fund kids who are too 'webellious' to get a proper job. (And do look down on people who have - including their academic mentors and everyone else who, as ditz has pointed out, are at least as much 'artists'.) If you work in the arts and haven't had this lot impose themselves on you, then you're very, very lucky.

'I just can't imagine calling myself an artist. I think I have known too many talentless trustefarians who consider sending an email requesting a gig and having a ten minute 'jam' on the guitar a full days work.'

They're wrong, that is a week's work.

I think that most of society doesn't value artists enough. They do believe that it is a ten minute jam and a slap of paint. But I was very pleased to see on TV the memorial to Ted Hughes in Westminster Abbey. Some parts of our society do still value artists highly. What an honour to be there amongst those great names. He will be remembered when all teh million dollar bonus bankers are history. I am all for more people calling themselves artists and wanting to be artists. I don't care if they are not like Ted Hughes. I don't think we should think they are 'crap' and have no talent.,

No problem, rockin .

The problem with art is that it is entirely subjective and, in certain circles, it is an investment. IMHO artists may be extemely talented and recognised as such by the majority, but still earn next to nothing. Other artists may not be so talented, but may strike a cord with some people and, due to a stroke of luck or due to having the right contacts, are seen as a good investment, and strike gold.

I have to agree with the OP though, if her friend hasn't sold anything in 30 years, she must be lacking in talent, as most of my amateur artist friends have sold something.

Why? Not all of those who are talented artists/writers/actors are able to sell their work as a product. Quality of work is not necessarily related to commercial value. Why is whether someone's been paid for their work relevant to anyone else anyway? Seems people just like to pigeonhole others.

"No, but you'd expect them to have sold one piece of work in a 30 year 'career'."

do you have to sell your art work to be an artist? the answer is no. why not support your friend in her interest. she obviously finds it emotionally rewarding even if it isn't financially rewarding.

Selling something just means someone liked it. It doesn't mean it was good.

XSIL has a friend who is an 'artist'. She produces delightful 'pictures', consisting of a piece of blank paper with a bit of bark or a small shell stuck in the middle.

That's art, that is. Because she says so and no I do not judge her much because she lives off benefits and has never done a days work in her life.

Anyone would think artists like having everyone judge them as failures, sneering at their lack of income from their art, and living on very little money Why would anyone put themselves through that unless they really felt driven to?

But it's not a 30 year career - it's not, it's not, she's only 30!
Her career hasn't been long at all.
And maybe she's maturing...

There's a writer called Terence Blacker who says it's bad for any writer to get 'rich' before 40 - not the same thing as being successful, obviously, but I think he has a good point.

'Artists' are likely to produce their best work when they've lived a bit... so 30's nothing, you know?

Right, so who's going to buy one of the OP's friend's pictures? You've just made her some contacts on here, OP. I'll start the bidding at 5p. Even if she sells something for 5p she has then gone professional and you can't complain she's never sold anything! Any advance on 5p?

I refer you to the legendary words of 'Get A Haircut'

That encapsulates the true spirit of rebellious rock'n'roll, the rebel, the iconoclast and the difference between the artist and the accountant. Long live art, long live rock'n'roll.

If the OP's friend was still trying to sell stuff and failed, that's different, I read it that she came out of art college, had lots of exhibitions but didn't get anywhere and stopped putting herself out there, and doesn't use things like the internet or current work to advertise herself.

She may not want to. I have a good friend who says she simply can't go through the personal torture of painting, she prefers to work in an office because it's too traumatic for her, even though she's very good and has made money from it in the past. Not everyone who is talented is cut out for the art world, same in music.

However, what most successful people have in common, in whatever field they are in is that they work exceptionally hard. You can't succeed in music, or art, or any creative field without putting in lots of hours, professional artists spend a long time perfecting and creating their art, the ones I know do anyway. Same with writing, most professional writers write systematically and daily, none of this waiting for the muse to strike.

Some of those who claim to be artists or writers do very little, and their claim is more about trying to have a nice identity than actually do what is required to succeed. People on the dole sticking shells on card come into this category, and there are lots of them (lots of 'writers' with only two book chapters as well).

The most unfortunate group are those who try very very hard and put the hours in and don't succeed, at the level they want to anyway. But I find there are far fewer of those people, and if they are clever enough to work hard, they often succeed in other areas anyway.

I still say artists are a different breed

'A grocer is attracted to his business by a magnetic force as great as the repulsion which renders it odious to artists.'
Honore de Balzac

Hardgoing you summed up my feelings perfectly in that post.

I have known many writers who work very, very hard on their books, but whose books are absolute crap. (Have had a job in the past reading submissions for publisher, people send in 1000.0000-word hand-written manuscripts of utter drivel).
While I can appreciate the frustration people might feel towards men those who consider themselves too cweative to go and get a job despite the fact that they have young DCs who need food and clothing, I think if someone is able to generate an income enough for his/her needs without leeching off other people then s/he is entitled to call him/heself an artist/writer/whatever even if the art isn't what brings in the money.
The OP's friend 'marries people who will support her'. That means it's no one else's problem if her husband/s are happy to support her; she can't be labelled a benefit scrounger, she's not relying on her elderly parents' dwindling assets to fund her, she's being supported by a willing, wage-earning adult. Just as plenty of women people are supported by willing, wage-earning adults in return for their charms, domestic service, amusement value or sexual prowess.

Just found a brilliant quote by Picasso.

'Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.'
Pablo Picasso

SGB, I guess the problem is how do you know if your novel is crap til you've written it although I was personally able to tell mine was by page 2

I have a principle now, I never ever read or say I will read anyone else's fiction, after two horrendous poetry related incidents that in one case really strained a friendship (I get asked every now and again). Although someone did manage to slip a report in recently, his pet project on electricity pylons, my feelings about which were difficult to put into words.

Hardgoing spot on :)

& FTR I don't personally define an artist (etc) by how much of their work they have actually sold, but by actual TALENT - & like it or not, in the commercial world we live in, real talent WILL sell pictures - perhaps not enough to keep he/she in luxury as art is as much at the whim of "fashion" as anything these days - artist with a commercial eye will cash in on that & do well - others won't, but if they have talent, they will still sell, just not as much

Oh sod believe in your dreams and all that tv talent show nonsense - 30 years without selling a thing do not make you officially An Artist. There's a difference between what you want to be and an honest answer to the question 'what do you do'. She's very very unlikely to be an undiscovered van Gogh.