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?

OK, but is a rhyme a crime?

As a friend to this woman your behaviour is belittling and unkind and does you no favours

Claig, why is the oddly shaped, orange bird house art, whilst the beautiful, intricate ones are not? This is the sort of thing that irritates the he'll out of me. I paint portraits. For many, many years, painting a portrait which actually looked like a real human being was frowned upon by the "elite". In fact, when I went for an interview at an art college aged 16, some 35 years ago, the tutor's dismissal of my work in favour of the black swirly things he had littered around his room put me right off an artistic career. Happily for me and many others I know, realism is making a big comeback.

I'm an artist,
but wouldn't go around calling myself one as if it's my profession, unless it brought in a wage.

"Claig, why is the oddly shaped, orange bird house art, whilst the beautiful, intricate ones are not?"

Because the former was made as a piece of art whilst the latter was not. Simple, eh?

If you made a beautiful intricate birdhouse with the intention of it being art, then it would be art.

Artyjools, I agree with you. But I am very ignorant about art in the sense of painting etc., I only know what I like. But having read Picassos' quote and thinking about abstract art, it does seem that there is a school of thought that prfers a non-literal, non-realistic approach, which is what I think that CheerfulYank's friend was thinking of. So even though that painting looked strange compared to the others, he meant that that was the 'one done by an artist'. I don't fully agree with him, but I do think he has a point too. That probably shows that art is hard to define and to some extent is personal and everyone has different tastes and different ways of appreciating it.

I know nothing about Picasso, but having looked up some of his quotes, I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

'If there were only one truth, you couldn't paint a hundred canvases on the same theme.'

Read more: www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso_2.html#ixzz1gsaKPMfF

Have you seen the BP portrait competition at the NAtional Portrait Gallery Artyjools there are some amazing realistic portraits that could be photographs.

I really don't get the argument that only the abstract is "artistic" ie the bird boxs. What about photography itself, some photos are wonderful works of art

Artyjools, well said.

I also do realistic portraits, I've noticed they're not that fashionable, but it's just what I do naturally.

Modern art has kind of pissed me off in the past, lol

Agree, with tethers, it's all art. But CheerfulYank's friend was emphasising that one of them was "real art". Of course, he was wrong, but there is nothing wrong with having that view, because it asks the question "what is art?" which leads to all that we have been discussing and to some of Picasso's profound quotes

'If only we could pull out our brain and use only our eyes.'
and
'I paint objects as I think them, not as I see them.

and gets to the heart of what the difference between art and nature is. The difference between art and reality and whether they are all just ways of seeing, and whether art can sometimes be more real in what it says than reality can.

I think the issue about conventional portraiture is that unless it's brilliant, it's not saying anything new about the world, and innovation/ideas have become associated with the definition of art
the portraits that are really just copies of photos - why?

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.

Fame and talent in any of the arts are not particularly tightly linked, and the rewards disproportionately go to the famous few.

Also a lot of artists famous in their lifetime don't stand the test of time, while others are only "discovered" after death.

I can't stand the word artist. Too loaded, makes me cringe. I don't have a problem if others want to use it.

You should look at her work and then decide if it is good or not.

"the portraits that are really just copies of photos - why?"

It's still the how the painter's view of sitter. The pose, the colours, the lighting are still part of the painters creation just as a photograph is. They are just two different mediums to reflect the same thing

Perhaps part of the problem is a linguistic one. Perhaps we should have two different questions, 'What do you do?' as in what do you spend your time and energy doing, and 'What is your profession / how do you make a living?' which is quite a different one.

If I were the poster way back in the thread who worked in the call centre I would say when asked, 'Well, my day job is working in a call centre, but what I'm passionate about is making art'.

I also agree that we are all potential artists, even if we never even show anyone our art, let alone sell it.

Also, years ago I went out with an aspiring writer, who was yet to be published but did have an agent. He used to get up at 5am and write for three hours before going to his full-time job. He kept going for years after many rejections and eventually won an award for his first published novel. So a big part of being successful in the artistic field I think is persistence and being driven, as well as talent of course.

Let her be an artist, she really wants to be and it's no skin off anyone else's nose. Whether she's good or not, what the heck

they are two different mediums but the camera wins hands down unless you have something to add to the respresentation that is beyond simple recording

as to the original q it doesn't seem that the op's friend is going around shouting out that she is an artist, she hasn't wanted to talk about it or show her art, it's op who has her knickers in a twist

ninah, have a look at Hyperrealism.

I think painting as a genre of art took on a whole new meaning with the invention of the camera; the goal was no longer to paint as documentary, and it needed redefining. Soon after, impressionism was born. The first 'modern art' which, although it caused an outcry at the time, is now not considered 'modern' at all. In fact, much of the 'modern art' people speak of as a catch-all for non-figurative and abstract work was created almost a century ago.

The problem with the word 'art' is that for most people it is synonymous with quality. Why does art have to be good? It is possible to have bad music, bad acting etc.- why isn't art afforded the same? Why must it be good to be art?

exactly - value added

"You should look at her work and then decide if it is good or not."

But Marsha, would that have any bearing on whether or not her work was art? Or indeed, whether or not she was an (brace yourself- and I agree with you about the tosser-klaxon sounding when anyone describes themselves as such ) artist?

OP I think you should ask to see your friends art works. My DD aged 7 considers herself to be an artist because she is good at drawing. I think being an artist is a frame of mind, therefore if your friend feels she is an artist she lives her life as one. 15 shows is pretty good going.

tethers.

The decide if it is good or not, was for the 'is she just crap?' bit.

Is it art, and is she... yes I think so. Art school, some shows etc etc. Not sure if it lasts for ever. Or if after a while the term fades. (for those that want to, sharp intake of breath, use it).

If you call yourself an artist, then I'd say you need to be making a living at it in order for the term to be accurate.

Otherwise, I could call myself a Cook. Well, I cook every day after all...

Also, even if she USED to support herself with her "art", there comes a time when it's unrealistic to carry on calling yourself something.

I read something by Frank Skinner once where he describes meeting a lady who had been in a film decades ago, who when he asked what she did, said loftily "I'm an actress" and asked what FS did, and he replied something like "Well by that logic I'm a schoolboy"

In short, calling yourself an artist if you've never sold a thing is pretentious and a teeny bit, well, dishonest.

I have no problem with abstract art, Claig. In fact, I like all sorts of art. The thing about Picasso is that he could actualy draw. When he painted abstracts, he wasn't hiding a lack of talent. Tracy Emin, for example, is famous for being an artist but WHY?? Art is subjective and in my subjective opinion she has no talent at all and is famous for being famous.

See www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365672/Modern-art-How-gallery-visitors-viewed-work-Damien-Hirst-Tracy-Emin-5-seconds.html for a bit of research on how art lovers spend only 5 seconds looking at the works of Emin and Hirst.

Bruffin, yes, I went to the BP portrait exhibition and was in awe at the amount of talent displayed. As for the hyperrealist portraits, that look like high definition photos, I can appreciate the great talent that goes into producing them, but they sometimes leave me a little cold. I agree with Ninah in that I feel that the portrait artist needs to bring something different to the world and most really don't (and I count my own works amongst the ones that don't - at least not yet .

If I might use music to explain about what I feel makes great art. We watch all the singing competitions on the TV (yes, I know but it is my DH's thing) The finalists in the current American X-factor include a woman who is technically brilliant but, in spite of singing some fantastic songs, has failed to give me goosebumps. I can't control which singers are able to do this, it is something that washes over me when I am listening. Now this guy not only gave me goosebumps, but when I first heard this, the tears streamed down my face - www.wetpaint.com/the-x-factor/video/video-josh-krajcik-sings-the-first-time-ever-i-saw-your-face-for-nicole-scherzinger-on-the-x-factor-october-16-2011. I doubt that visual art can ever do that, but great art must move you in some way, or cause you to question something, or see the world in a different way.

What saddens me about the BP portrait prize is that it is supposed to be a competition for artists who are working from life, but it is very clear that many are working from photos. I work from photos most of the time too, but I would like people to be honest.

Agree that photos can sometimes be art, but most aren't. I'm always baffled that folks will spend a small fortune on photos of themselves and their families but would never think of having their portrait painted. I guess that's a question for another thread.

(Waves at fellow portrait artist Himynameisfred and wonders if you are making any money out of it??)

"Tracy Emin, for example, is famous for being an artist but WHY?? Art is subjective and in my subjective opinion she has no talent at all and is famous for being famous. "

She is famous for being an artist because, well, she's an artist. Art is not subjective- whether you like it or not has no bearing on whether or not it's art. Whether she's any good or not (and I can't stand her work) does not decide whether or not she is an artist, or if what she makes is art.

If she has made or appropriated it with the purpose of it being art, it's art.

"If you call yourself an artist, then I'd say you need to be making a living at it in order for the term to be accurate."

So far, analogies have been made (by me included) with music, drama, medicine, cookery and construction. Actually, I think these analogies prove nothing, as art has no equivalent or parallels. No other 'form' works in the same way. Art is not simply a profession, even though some artists make a living from it. There is no requirement for it to be skilled, or for training to be undertaken; there are many 'outsider artists' who have never had a day's formal training; yet they are artists nonetheless.

Artyjools, if it makes you feel any better, my friend won the BP portrait travel award and she works from life . There is certainly more skill involved in painting from life than from a photograph, but the resulting work is not more art.

If the photographer intends their work to be art (or if another artist appropriates their work as art), it's art. If they don't, it's not. In this way, you could have two identical photographs; one could be art, the other wouldn't.