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?

Great article in the Mail.
Love the average dwell time at Damien Hirst's pickled animal of 38 seconds.

But there is one major flaw in the study. They were all ordinary people, ordinary art lovers and what the hell do they know about art?

If the study had been of art critics and connoiseurs then the picture would have been different, average dwell time for the pickled animal would have been 2 hours and average dwell time for the classics would have been 2 seconds.

Who lets the hoi polloi into these bastions of artistic excellence? Next they'll be daring to say "the emperor has no clothes".

Oh christ, 38 seconds in front of anything would be a record for me, claig.

If its meaning is not clear within a short time-frame, I'm off. I can't be bothered with it. If it takes an art critic to explain it, it is IMO a bit shit.

It's still art, though

"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."

Agree that music and theatre does far more to move me to tears than any piece of art, although I do like spending time in galleries. I think I do appreciate technical brilliance rather than something a bit abstracty. But I do feel that you need to have the technical ability before you turn it around to make it something different.

It matters not a jot who likes it or buys it. It would be a sad world if we were all the same and no one could materialise onto paper or as a sculpture etc that which is going on in the creative part of their mind.I redesign houses for a living and some people hate what I do and others like it and pay for it. I don't care either way

"If the study had been of art critics and connoiseurs then the picture would have been different, average dwell time for the pickled animal would have been 2 hours and average dwell time for the classics would have been 2 seconds.".

I'm not so sure about this (although I suspect your comment is slightly tongue-in-cheek). There are plenty of art critics, connoisseurs and art historians who dislike work such as Hirst's. On the other hand, there are plenty who like both "proper" art and conceptual work. An appreciation of one or the other is not necessarily a strict choice. Personally, I'm not a fan of either Emin or Hirst, since I think that for conceptual art to work, the concept has to at least be interesting, which it isn't (to me, at least) in the case of either of these artists. But there are other contemporary artists who manage to produce work which is both conceptually and formally interesting. Emin, I note, has recently been elected as Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy, which is rather baffling since, although her drawings have quite an expressive quality, she has shown no sign of possessing the accomplished draughtsmanship which one would expect from the holder of this post.

The dwell-time thing in that DM article is a bit of a red-herring, if you ask me. A work of art that is conceptual is obviously going to rely far less on its visual dimension than works which are narrative or expressionist. Is the amount of time which a work requires of a viewer really an index of how good it is? If that were the case, then artists like Hogarth or William Powell Frith would be universally acknowledged as superior to Leonardo.

I do believe that is it possible to make judgments about works of art and their inherent quality or aesthetic value. But the market can certainly not be taken to be the arbiter of taste - at the end of the day, it's simply driven by the tastes and finances of a small number of individuals. We don't know what would have happened to Hirst or Emin had it not been for Charles Saatchi.

crazyspaniel, you are right. I was being tongue-in-cheek. There are lots of art critics etc. who don't like Hirst and Emin et al.

Brian Sewell

Just read Sewell's Evening Standard article on Emin and then wondered what he thought of Banksy. He does not approve. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is a very good writer and uses language well.

I disagree with most of what he says, but I think he's brilliant. You don't get many like him these days.

"But the market can certainly not be taken to be the arbiter of taste - at the end of the day, it's simply driven by the tastes and finances of a small number of individuals. We don't know what would have happened to Hirst or Emin had it not been for Charles Saatchi."

Agreed, and here's the rub. As a well regarded artist said to me recently during a discussion about putting forward paintings for competitions / exhibitions - it's not what you know, but who you know. So no different to other walks of life really.

I agree it is who you know. I painted a lot in my 20s just for my own pleasure and nothing more. But once a fairly well known musician hung one in his managers office I was inundated with requests. Before that though no one had ever asked me to produce anything!

Someone heard that above mentioneed DH's uncle had died, they rang DH's aunt to see if she had any pictures to sell. They weren't interested once they found out he was still alive.

you'd hate me.in my spare time im a community artist

Claig I totally know what you mean WRT the birdhouses. I just meant that they were all art; I mean they were really gorgeous. But to him it can only be art if not many people like it. He can love something deeply, like a band or a poet, but then as soon as more than a few people hear about it/her, he accuses them of "selling out". I can't abide that in a person, to pretend to like something because you think you should, or not like it because you think you shouldn't. If you see what I mean. :)

CheerfulYank, I know what you mean. Lots of people are like that. They think they are cool and avant-garde by liking stuff that the masses don't appreciate, even if it is utter crap. You see it everywhere, even in fashion, people want to be different from the herd, to stand out from the crowd, and to demonstrate their superior taste.

Children are the most honest and least pretentious. That's why it is so funny to read in that Daily Mail article what some of their reaction to the sheep was

'The sheep was a big draw with children, prompting giggles.'

and to imagine the difference in reaction of the avant-garde.

'Two parties of 25 teenagers trooped around accompanied by teachers. 'What is that?' asked one boy. 'A dead sheep? Is it in water or something? It would look good as a coffee table.'

That kid should be snapped up as a Sunday supplement critic.

I am no fan of Damien Hirst, but years ago we took a group of Y7 students to a gallery (I think it was the Saatchi) and he was there. One girl was brave enough to approach him, and he happily drew a shark and signed it in her sketchbook. It will be worth a bloody fortune

Great stuff. Very good of him to be so approachable and do that.

I wouldn't hate you, cheesesarnie - the 'community' part does it for me!

Brian Sewell might though, cheese

although id never say it out loud!its on my cv and personal statement though

Well I can't talk about visual art but I can talk about music (which IS my profession) and not that dissimilar I think. I think what's missing in this discussion is that if you work in the "arts", your career is a portfolio of related skills, some of which earn you money, and some which may not at any particular time. And all this is fluid over time.
So for example, if you go to music college, you get a music degree. When you graduate you try to be a musician. You play a bit, you teach a bit, you do community music work a bit. Over time these things ebb and flow. More teaching, less playing, a bit of conducting the church choir. Then later, you play more, teach less, drop the choir. Have a family. Reorganise the portfolio again. Whatever. The point is that if you have a real professional training in your art, you can earn and contribute artistically in different ways, at different times, and in different circumstances. Each feeds into the other. Some pay, some don't. But I do think the paying element is what makes you a professional artist. And there's no point refusing to work untll the day the Royal Opera House knocks on your door. You need to nurture yourself, your finances and your art by working on it in all its aspects - even if it means teaching 8 year olds to draw or helping at your local Arts Festival. If you do those things, you're an artist. If you don't, you're an amateur.

When I was teaching art, I was not an artist; I didn't make any art. That is not to say that all art teachers are not artists, just that teaching art does not make you an artist unless you are also making art.

Also, I don't think artists (or musicians for that matter) need to have had formal training in order to be artists and musicians; although I do think that art and music are not the same.

I think the notion of amateur vs artist is wrong. It is perfectly possible to be an artist at the drop of a hat. You just might not be any good.