What's that thing that you have to do to be an 'artist' compared other people who are not 'artists'?

This is... totally not the hardest question in the world of art to answer...;;

Technically anyone or even everyone is an artist. There is no limit to the term 'artist', you are a artist if you believe you are one.

When it come's down to visual art... it's really just about knowing what art is. Not about forcing yourself to love the Monalisa, or knowing every inch of art history.

It's all up to you, if you can draw your mind into a piece of paper, that's art, which makes you an artist.

Thus ends my cheezy take on your question.

Remember this is in my opinion, how I view an artist.

unless your a piss artist.. Thats a whole different kind..

one word: talent

It is dependent on the person qualifying another as an "artist" BUT in my mind I'd like to think it is someone who has spent ALOT of dedication, time, and effort in developing and learning their craft WITH actual growth. So abstract artists can be BOOTED. Like if you play flamenco guitar you learn several exercises and if you get the BPMs up/SPEED that is a DEFINITE improvement. That GROWTH coupled with CREATING ART is what an artist is to me.

I DON'T consider guitarists/singers or otherwise who are still at the stage of just copying other peoples' work "artists" though it is a part of the learning process. The HARDEST part of creating art is CREATING your own unique art

This is... totally not the hardest question in the world of art to answer...;;

Technically anyone or even everyone is an artist. There is no limit to the term 'artist', you are a artist if you believe you are one.

When it come's down to visual art.

I would argue that the essence of an artist is that an artist has made artistry their essence. That... is a confusing and repetitive sentence. What I mean by 'making something one's essence' is that even if one is born a certain way, or raised that way from a young age, one is ultimately free in what one makes oneself what becomes essential to who one is. One's parents or society-at-large also hold some responsibility, but that can't absolve one's crimes or negate one's achievements. What I mean by 'Artistry' is the use of a skill in a way that pursues some ideal of what that skill should be. (I realize this definition is vague about what kind of skills are art.)


Technically anyone or even everyone is an artist. There is no limit to the term 'artist', you are a artist if you believe you are one.
No, there's more to it than that. Is someone a doctor because they believe they are? Or a politician? or a carpenter? For the term to have any meaning, one must define oneself, at least in part, as an artist. To me, being an artist is closer to what soundwave said:


I'd like to think it is someone who has spent ALOT of dedication, time, and effort in developing and learning their craft WITH actual growth.
You (Chronelic) may say that one can be something they aren't dedicated to being, but I disagree. Of course, your post may really be saying there's no limit to the term 'art', and that something is art if you believe it is. Then I'm more inclined to agree. That said, I don't believe that art has no limits.


When it come's down to visual art... it's really just about knowing what art is. Not about forcing yourself to love the Monalisa, or knowing every inch of art history.
Yes, being an artist comes down to knowing what art is. But what is art? It's easy to describe art in a nebulous sense, saying it has aesthetic value or something, but what is aesthetic value, or better, which kind aesthetic value? Surely Picasso didn't paint with the same kind of aesthetic as Rembrandt.

I feel as though an artform (such as visual art) needs to be divided into different schools or styles to be rightly understood. Loving (or having any opinion about) the Mona Lisa is in no way necessary to loving art if you are, say, a cubist, an impressionist, or a realist. In a certain sense, the Mona Lisa simply isn't your artform, even if it is your medium. But if you are a neo-renaissance painter, the Mona Lisa suddenly becomes your business -- you must either love it, hate it, or be willfully apathetic to it. The difference is that these schools have different ideas of what art ought to be. Realism isn't necessarily antithetical to the idealized smoothness of the renaissance portrait, but it is qualitatively different.


It's all up to you, if you can draw your mind into a piece of paper, that's art, which makes you an artist.
If you can actually put your mind on paper, you're not just an artist, you're a master.


one word: talent
This is far from true! Anyone with artistic talent ceases to be an artist if they let the talent languish. And ask any artist (http://artalyst.com/article/5480) whether talent is needed to be an artist -- they'll tell you that while talent has an effect, the far more important thing is dedication and practice.


It is dependent on the person qualifying another as an "artist" BUT in my mind I'd like to think it is someone who has spent ALOT of dedication, time, and effort in developing and learning their craft WITH actual growth. So abstract artists can be BOOTED. Like if you play flamenco guitar you learn several exercises and if you get the BPMs up/SPEED that is a DEFINITE improvement. That GROWTH coupled with CREATING ART is what an artist is to me.
Yours is the opinion closest to my own, so let me see if I can pull out the nuanced differences. I wouldn't hang the difference between an artist and a non-artist on actual growth. Certainly, artistic stagnancy is a good indication of whether one is an artist or a poseur. I take it you put abstract artists in this camp, and that you think they throw paint on a canvas at random, just to make a quick buck. (There are some artists like this, but I think there's more to abstract art than you give it credit for.) If someone is like this, they aren't essentially an artist, but just a greedy person who happens to make art.

But what becomes painfully clear when one has been practicing art for a while is that plateaus happen -- actual growth isn't always achievable. Eventually, one may find how to continue improving, but in the meantime, does one cease being an artist? What I believe is far more important is one's love of pursuing artistic excellence. The external consequences of the pursuit are, to the artist who only cares for art, accidental. Make no mistake, the artist is pained -- heartbroken -- by the lack of these externals, doubting themself; thinking, "if only I were more dedicated to my art, I would improve. If only I knew my art better, it would be appreciated." But these sighs come from love of the art alone.


I DON'T consider guitarists/singers or otherwise who are still at the stage of just copying other peoples' work "artists" though it is a part of the learning process.
Given the above, my answer to this should be obvious. There is a conception of excellence and a self-expression, albeit rough and nascent, in copying. Unless an atelier is forcing one to copy, a young student of art will copy the art they admire and that they identify with. Even if they are copying for a teacher in an atelier, they are in error unless they have an inkling of infatuation with whatever school of art they are studying.

TL;DR: Being an artist is being in love with an ideal of what art should be, and trying one's best to make that ideal into a reality.

If you put effort into your work and not just randomly throw pencils around that made marks that coincidentally look like something, then you are an artist. Even if it is just a toilet seat that was painted white, you still put some thought into it.

Talent is often confused with mass production. A new singer sells a million copies of his/her work and is considered an artist, a success. However, when you think about all behind this said success, you inevitably end up seeing the reproduction of Capitalism's values and how our modern society is driven by them.

Talent can also sometimes be confused with skill, which is something that has to be worked on over and over. Being good isn't enough, you have to keep at it, and definitely have some kind of discipline.

My thinking is that, depending on the person, what makes someone an artist can depend on what someone considers art. Some people, for instance, don't consider video games as a valid form of art. Or movies, either.

For me, ultimately, I think someone who works to create something in a visual or audio medium can fit the bill.

For me, ultimately, I think someone who works to create something in a visual or audio medium can fit the bill.

Are chefs, who work through the medium of taste, artists?

Not to me.

But, I know they are for many. And, for what it's worth, I remember there being a culinary major to be taken in one of the art schools in New York.

But, to me...I don't it so.

You have to be considered an artist by other people that create art. You cannot simply declare yourself an artist. This is the main reason why most people are aspiring artists and not true artists. They haven't yet proven themselves worthy by their peers.

I agree with this on some level, but I have to ask why other artists have to accept you. This implies that art is more a social phenomenon than it is an individual one (and I'm sure you're right) but I sense an unseen structure here that's ripe for exploration.

I agree with this on some level, but I have to ask why other artists have to accept you. This implies that art is more a social phenomenon than it is an individual one (and I'm sure you're right) but I sense an unseen structure here that's ripe for exploration.

Art has always been about socialization. Nobody makes art for themselves. Art Os made to draw people in. Anyone that claims to make art for himself is not yet an artist.

People come from other people. It is only natural. And Art is born from other people. If no one ever shared their art, there would be no such thing as Art.

What is it about art, though, that makes it social? It seems, on the face of it, that the essence of art is its beauty, and one can appreciate the beauty of art regardless of other people. An artist might even appreciate their own work, if they can just distance themself from its creator. Would you say that beauty is social? or perhaps that beauty isn't all there is to art?

What is it about art, though, that makes it social? It seems, on the face of it, that the essence of art is its beauty, and one can appreciate the beauty of art regardless of other people. An artist might even appreciate their own work, if they can just distance themself from its creator. Would you say that beauty is social? or perhaps that beauty isn't all there is to art?


Is beauty social? Is water wet? Heck yeah beauty is social!
People have an innate need to be connected to other people. Beauty is very much a bonding force for people.

I think there are lots of ways of being an artist. For me, it's a full-time job that ruins my social life and keeps me permanently out of shape. Other people do it in more romantic kinds of ways.

Sometimes I wish I had gone the more romantic route, where I'm living in a little square apartment pulling gorgeous espresso shots and doing things that I'm passionate about, debating aesthetics with other people who have lots of free time -- calling my agent up and talking about the window placement I got at the last opening being insufficient... but I know I'd find a way to ruin that too, so I figure it's probably best that I do the version that provides security and health coverage for my family.

I think dissatisfaction and art go hand in hand, but I won't get too deeply into that.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

I think my point is: you can think of it as a passion and call yourself an artist if you want, and nobody is going to stop you. Keep doing anything for long enough and it usually finds a way to generate money.

On the other side of that "Artist" is also a job title, and if you have that job title, you can be pretty sure you're an artist.

If you'd doing art solo and trying to make money at it, the government gives you the benefit of the doubt for five years, tax-wise. After that, if you haven't turned a profit, then it's officially a hobby.

Artistry without God is like a paintbrush without the painter. what makes life enjoyable is that what you find excellent, pleasing and desirable is a reflection of what you were created for. Each one is made unique. the reason that people excel in what they've been given is because they find that what they do is important, and worth their effort. You can have slumps where you are out of passion, it happens, but something beautiful is going through the experiences in life that have intrinsic value in them, not because you are finding it hard and you get out of it, eventually, but because nothing can turn away the artists soul. The things that make us artists are what make others gaze at you and see something of value. Something better and memories of what life is like. The real you, the one that was made to tell your story.

It does make me question what goes on, but maybe that's confidence. I'm telling you that there is one that will satisfy you completely, and all your passion and drive for life will be found in. That is what defines an artist. One that is capable of producing excellence. That is why people will listen to you and why what you say must be heard.

^This. I think this is the missing piece in my own idea of art. I draw and write and compose, but I haven't really understood how my art ties in to my ultimate purpose in life. Obviously, for a Christian, there isn't -- at least, there shouldn't be -- any separation between the religious and secular life. A Christian's earthly life needs to be continually sacrificed to the singular purpose of glorifying the Lord. I've never met anyone who's managed this, but we're all striving toward the same goal.

I said in another post that I think of artistry as a love affair with an aesthetic ideal. But the church loves her Husband with all her heart, all her mind, all her soul, and all her strength. For her, nothing else comes close to Him. If she is an artist, I can only imagine that Christ is her favorite subject. She paints His portrait again and again, never quite capturing His shining visage, but for His sake, unable to give it up. (You'll notice this describes her moral life, too.) I'm not trying to say she limits herself to this one subject; as I said, there is no separation between the secular and religious. What I am trying to say is that in her landscapes, in her still lives, in her figure drawings, Christ's presence is palpable, as though He's standing just out of frame. Her signature is the little SDG written in the corner, her style the massive Soli Deo Gloria panted across the canvas.

Opium. Lots of opium. Plus rent boys (or whores, if that's your bag) lined up around the block. Oodles of 'em. Ya, those too. But you can't be a real artiste unless you've had at least one bout of syphilis; two, and you're a undisputed genius.

I can smell (mental) cages and prisons in here. WHO is to judge one's creation-result? For me, the Word or the label is not the question here. Your intuition guides you, inspiration, passion, personnal taste and you then proceed. I don't need any supervisor to turn me down. The point is that when you really love and Respect what you do (and the latter applies to the final result of your work and method-plans you follow to achieve that) the there will be recognition by those who damn like your work. This very work is then translated as ART in the recipient's perception, consciousness and beyond. Hours spent - dedication, some Research, influences, the will to share. Sure potential profit would be a good motive but there is always the danger of loss in terms of Freestyle creation. The way I look at it, Art is meant to influence and it always evolves.

Art is a spiritual force.

You can use it to do anything you want. If you want something to happen, you manifest it in the art you create, and perhaps one day your dream will come true. Good dream, evil dream, art is indifferent to purpose the person wants to use it for. It's like the Triforce from Link to the Past.

Using that spiritual force to benefit humanity in some way is always going to be what drives any artist, because artists are human beings who, at least on some level, understand they don't live in a vacuum and that their art is meaningless if no one ever experiences it except them. Therefore, in addition to wanting good things to happen because of their actions, artists are also driven by a need to communicate.

Every coin has two sides, and anyone knows that the dark side of artists comes when they employ their skills for destructive or meaningless or wasteful ends. But duality is a trait all human beings share, so it deserves these two sentences acknowledging it, I believe.