|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Old stuff
- 2 major rewrite of artist page
- 3 Proposed rewrite
- 4 Starving Artists...
- 5 Dumb word
- 6 Pejorative Term
- 7 Pejorative
- 8 Examples
- 9 Citation of references
- 10 Artist: History of the term
- 11 Too much see also.
- 12 RE: Split
- 13 WikiProject class rating
- 14 External links
- 15 WHY are ALL the "examples" of artists MEN?
"who employs creative talent": this is questionable. There are certainly artists without talent, or, it could certainly be argued by some people that there are. --Daniel C. Boyer and everyday artists with no talent but childy manners are taken on colomns for money exchange, concepts aren't art. creativity isn't enought but new expression reorienting way of finding mind or soul is.
It seems that you have an axe to grind here. although I agree with you that the page is a poor example when you consider the importance of artists in relation to both world and local culture. I have to disagree with your interpretation of both creativity and talent.
first 'talent' is an ability. Talent is not a competitive range, we all have it, all be it to a greater or lesser extent.
second the word creativity stems from the latin 'creare' to produce - It is more widely understood to mean some form of innovative production - again this is not exclusive we all can do it, or rather DO it in some aspect of our daily lives, even if it is simply in dressing, parenting, or making food.
So to recap - Creative Talent is essentially anyones 'abilty to create'
Clearly concepts are something that we all have the ability to create - this page is proof enough of that - 2 concepts both created.
As for wether that makes one an artist or not has been a matter of some debate. and with most debate the telling result is that it shows the perspective of those doing the debating. It seems that you assume that 'Artist' is a special term confered on those that 'deserve' it somehow. my stance is one that folows the line that Artist is simply a badge that can, when worn, give you permission to do what you might not ordinarily do. we should all be allowed to be artists even if only for our own pleasure.
Now of course when Art is treaded as a commodity then it follows that the artists must be of limited number, otherwise we'd all be doing it, and then how would the dealers and galleries make any money. the way they limit the number of artists is by making art seem difficult and obscure. It seems you want the best of both worlds - a distant artistic elite and a way of finding mind and soul. If you keep your artists as seperate dwellers in ivory towers they can be admired from afar, but wont help anyone understand mind and soul as much as if they too can partake of being an artist themselves.
As for the media coverage of ones that you dont feel deserving of it, chances are that somebody else does. If you dont like it dont read it, who will benefit from your resistance to it?
I would suggest that creativity is enough - the pressure for everyone to find a 'new expression' has led to the incoherent fragmentation of modernism and post modernism and in turn caused the very issue it seems that you are objecting to. when artists where simply trained colourmen and artisans the goals were clear "is this a better painting than the last". but then that is a painters view and Artist is a wider term. So go out there and BE an artist yourself, create better stuff (in whatever feild you know) with all of YOUR talent. you may not get national recognition, but your world will be a better place.
DavidP 19:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
major rewrite of artist page
The previous page was cursory - so I have rewritten the page and in doing so tried to keep any worthwhile content from the previous page - the two comments above relate to that previous page. the page was also listed in the PNA list - I have removed it from that list, as now I believe it only requires cleanup and of course some more input. DavidP 00:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Artist is a subjective term which describes a person creative in, innovative in, or adept at, their endeavors.
Most often, the term describes those who create in a cultural context, such as engaging in drawing, sculpting, acting, dancing, writing, filmmaking and music — people who use imagination, and talent or skill, to create works of aesthetic value.
, especially in the fine arts. Art historians and art critics define artists as those who produce art within a recognised provenance.
Many people use the term to denote highly skilled people in non-
fine"arts" activities, as well — crafts, medicine, alchemy, mechanics, mathematics, defense (martial arts) and architecture, for example. The designation often applies to people skilled at nefarious or questionable activities, too — like "scam artist" or "bullshit artist."
Billions of books, articles, essays and theses are written, acedemic courses created, and café discussions held in an effort to define "art" and "artist", and yet, there is no consensus amongst humans about what constitues "art" or who is, or is not, an "artist".
Western culture widely accepts that anyone can call themselves an "artist", however posterity ultimately decides whether the label fits.
The Oxford English dictionary, cites
the broader meanings of the term "artist,"
- A learned person or Master of Arts.
- One who persues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry.
- A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice - the opposite of a theorist.
- a follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic.
- one who makes their craft a fine art.
- one who cultivates one of the fine arts - traditionally the arts presided over by the muses.
(referenced from: C. T. Onions (1991). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Clarendon Press Oxford. ISBN 0-19-861126-9.)
In Greek the word "techně" means "art." In Latin, derived from the Greek word, "art" is "tecnicus", from which the English words technique, technology, technical are derived. So, though the words have evolved over millenia, their root is the same.
Tonight's edits are marked with strikeout for what I took out and underline for what I changed or added.
Some more tweaking. It occurs to me that the myth of the "starving artist" could be discussed in this piece. Comments?
Sparkit. a good edit i think, I didnt have the time to give the page the attention it required and am glad that someone clearly has. having said that I would like to add a balancing para to your ending comment that refers to posterity - which I agree with but feel is only true from the perspective of an art historian. the balance i would suggest would aim to differentiate between the historians view that artists are the subject of study (when notable enough) and the process based perspective of the artist whose subject of study is the form and content of their work. the reason that I feel that this is important is that I find that artists are often spoken of as though they dont begin to exist until they are dead - which as i'm sure you will agree is an oxymoron. in reality this amounts to a situation similar to the classic "does he take sugar" syndrome. my interest here is permisive.
Surely the latin word ars is seperate from the greek techne which was indeed adopted by latin to mean 'craft' in direct contrast to art.
and finaly we must be careful to consider usage of terms such as 'plastic arts' 'fine arts' (which are both rather dated) 'visual arts' etc. they are often culturaly specific buzz words and tend to draw the subject away from its broader context (poetry, performance, and even martial) into specific areas (usually the visual arts) that are best linked to. (ever noticed the american preoccupation with all things turn of the century french - and the strange status implications of the term 'fine art' ?)
DavidP 03:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, David! I feel a bit bleary this evening, so I'll come back to this tommorrow. I think I understand what you mean about posterity deciding the importance or impact of an artist.
- The etomology of the word, though interesting, seems nearly irrelevant. However, I left it in, and perhaps misinterpreted what is written in the posted article.
- Thanks for pointing out the broader context. I've cut some of the references out.
- (I have noticed the American preoccupation with turn-of-the-century French culture, particularly in myself. ;) )
- Please, David and everyone, add to or change what I've drafted above.
It is true that there are "starving artists"... mostly because they do not know how to make a living from their work. Some artists also just do not want to market their work for personal reasons as well.
Many artists have to support themselves doing non-art jobs, like waiting tables in order to support themselves. This does not mean that their art is "bad"... it just means that they have most likely not been discovered yet.
I work on a site called Art.Net and work with artists all over the world, helping them to get exposure for themselves and their art via the Internet and WWWeb. And I have to say, there are alot of good artists out there just making ends meet (or not!).
Also, in history, there has been the case of artists dying poor and only after their deaths, being discovered and considered as great artists. And some famous artists of their day have died as paulpers... look at Mozart!
Would be happy to help write this section of the article. Just let me know where you would like it added. It would also be nice to have a section for external links so that artists could point to their sites from this page... and sites could be referenced that relate to artists.
- lile 20:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)--
Webmaster/Artist of Art.Net
- It is also true that there are or have been starving mathematicians, politicians, dieticians and even in the case of howard hughes millionaires. but there is no overwhelming desire to add a section to those pages. Why on earth is the ability to provide oneself with food a valid adjunct to the profession of 'artist' - If you think about it for a little while you will realise that it is part of the mythology created by collectors, to work up the price of the job lot of paintings they bought cheap from so&so's widow. It actually has almost no bearing on the encyclopeadic content of the artist article. before we start adding 'artists with cats' or artists with 'green front doors' lets sort out the rather scattered info that we do have. DavidP
The only thing that seems to connect 'artists' is the desire to be seen as 'artists' - it is more than a little sad. Art is a sad word too and better avoided.Pliny 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The word “artists” is often used as a pejorative term especially by more conservative people or people who do not value either art or the artists who make art. Usually the arguments against artists are that they are lazy or egotistical. The main opposition to them seems to be from individuals who do not share the same values as artistic people.
Not sure who made the above comment. Saying that conservative people, be they conservative politically or otherwise, are not interested in art or artists who make art is total bunk. Some of the largest collections of art were founded by people associated as being 'conservative'. Many wealthy art collectors would be considered 'conservative' by definition of the word. I don't think anyone is 100% fiscal or social conservative or that anyone is 100% fiscal or social liberal. Just thought I would point that out. The myth that all conservatives are against art comes from the NEA mess during the 90s. Which a Democrat controlled congress could have stopped I might add. Artblogs (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Notation of use of the word 'artist' in a derogatory vein is beyond trivial; nearly any and every noun describing a profession, career, or interest can take on a negative spin (he's just a 'mechanic'; they are 'politicians'; she is a 'feminist'), and such usage is anomalous. To note this does nothing to add to our understanding of the word or its deeper meanings. That is why I deleted the satement. However, it has been reinstated, and I have no interest in an editing skirmish.
JNW 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. That statement seems out of place at the end of an article. If it must be included, it could belong under a section addressing the public's conceptions of artist and artist stereotypes, which would also include other conceptions of artists.
- removed Johnbod 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It is fine to have examples of arts and artists. Of course they are only examples, not statistically representative (what kind of statistical approach would be adequate?). Many encyclopedias have such lists, for instance, lists of types of insects with one of each type. They illustrate the extention of the word and add interest to the article. 18.104.22.168 19:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I changed john keats with pablo nerud at the voice "poet".. it gives more a glance of internationalism IMHO... --Sailko 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
More to the point - the Arts area has extensive lists of artists already - shouldn't this article be referring to those rather than trying to create a new list of a somewhat arbitrary nature. I'd suggest this section needs a structure and headings and links to the places where rather better lists can be found. (sorry forgot to include signature!) Cosmopolitancats 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody actually think that this list holds any value? By whose criteria were the examples chosen? I vote to keep a list of types of artist and delete references to individuals - those exist in the lists of artists which exist anyway
I suggest we make more links to the existing categories of artists and in so doing connect this article up to the rest of the arts articles and make it a more coherent with the rest of wikipedia. Cosmopolitancats 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
eerm - the guidance says 'be bold' so I was and removed all the names of individuals. This article is about the nature of an artist not individual artists as exemplars - particularly when could think of much better examples for some of those listed.Cosmopolitancats 01:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note...Walt Disney produced some great animation, but he wasn't an artist; he was an entrepreneur who sponsored work by artists (animators). I've gone ahead and replaced him with his contemporary Chuck Jones, who is about equally iconic and was much more involved in animation itself. Of course, if we want to give the list a more international scope, there are plenty of great non-American animators--I'd suggest Lotte Reiniger or Jiří Trnka.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Citation of references
This article needs to focus effort on the citation of appropriate references for what has been written.
Should what has been written be removed if no references are forthcoming?
All references also need to be included in a references section - which I'm adding, along with an external links section. Cosmopolitancats 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I added more dictionary definitions. I think this is the way to go - provide verifiable views as to what an artist is rather than make it up for ourselves. Content may be fine - lack of citation when it resources exist isn't. (forgot sinature again!) Cosmopolitancats 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Artist: History of the term
I think 'seven muses' should read 'nine muses' Rene deBeauville 03:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Rene
Too much see also.
In my opinion, this article has way too much see also. Either make a template, or a category. Better yet page that has a list of all theese article. TheBlazikenMaster 11:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind that, I misread the "see also section".
I think it is a possibility that this article could be split into a few different articles. What do you guys think? Eric Wester 16:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- History of the term artist could probably make an article by itself? Eric Wester 16:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- We need an article called artist; there isn't enough here to split frankly. Creation of sub- or specialized articles doesn't need debate, so I will boldly remove the tag - now 2 1/2 months old. Johnbod 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it suitable for C-class now, or are there any major aspects that are still missing? The one noticeable problem is an almost complete lack of inline citations. Sionk (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The above link was added to the page. I've removed it for now. I don't feel it's appropriate, as it's basically a wiki for artists to post info about themselves. This is ripe for abuse and self-promotion. I'd like to get some consensus on this. freshacconcispeaktome 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with your rationale. It does not add something indispensable, and is open for self-promotion. Not a keeper. JNW (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is good concise information on the site. Very basic stuff but all in one place and ideal for the college student. See [] or []. It's also - as far as I can see - properly and regularly maintained and it's directly pertinent to this article which, so far, has no external linking. I assume anyone commenting here has taken the time to look at the site? Setwisohi (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I have looked at it. As scholarship, it's exceedingly thin, and is, as already noted, vulnerable to self-promotion. The artists' biographies are too short to be of practical scholarly use for students; they don't offer even a minimal amount of information, and the alphabetized page  underscores the drawbacks of its wiki-ness: contemporary non-notables are mixed in with old masters. JNW (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- note: Just to add, looking at some other external links - for galleries and the like - they almost all allow for advertising to be added. (Whether by companies or individuals). Isn't that self-promotion? And also ripe for abuse? I dont much fancy deleting all links which have advertising on... Or is there a difference which I'm not getting? Setwisohi (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation is that links are expected to meet a certain standard of scholarship, and either elaborate on the content or add something of substance to the article. There are qualitative decisions re:links, as well as to the content of the article itself. As for the second point, Wikipedia guidelines do note that the presence of inappropriate links (and there are many) do not justify the addition of further questionable links. JNW (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I see what you are driving at and I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with you. Although I think we have to bear in mind that most people are not scholars nor are they looking for scholarly links. On the second point I also agree with you - 'crap' exists is not a reason for more of it to exist. (Of course I disagree that this link is such 'crap'). But now, by accident, we have 'discovered' a fault here in a different area of Wiki policy: namely, if links should not be to sites which allow for self-promotion, then links which allow for advertising of any kind should also be banned. Of course that's just not practicable. Nor is it desirable. So, by default, a site which allows for self-promotion should not be barred - it's just a form of advertising is it not? Setwisohi (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, all advertising or self-promotional links are strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy, and one can spend the better part of a lifetime chasing spam and battling its proponents. And there is a history of spam linking to articles on the arts. I don't think the link you propose is crap, and your intentions are constructive, but it has weaknesses as discussed above. Here's another rationale specific to this article: For a link to be included, it would have to be of very high quality, or expansive in its application. The article encompasses a wide spectrum of art forms, and it is logical to anticipate that it could easily be overrun by external links to dozens of branches of the arts (painting, film, dance, etc), as well as thousands of individual artists, each one valid. In this case, a lack of links seems to work nicely. JNW (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. I can see your rationale on this last point and I think I agree with you. So long as this article maintains no external links or only very very top quality ones, I think that you are right and this particular article is improved. Setwisohi (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Possibly so. The section WP:ELNO#2 states 'normally to be avoided'. If this or any other open-source Wiki is properly maintained there is no reason to exclude it. Likewise, there is no reference to sites being barred on grounds of 'self-promotion'; not sure where or why this has been considered an issue here. All advertising is promotion and, within limits, it is acceptable. JaneVannin (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, it isn't a rigid application of the rules, but an assessment of how valuable this link is to an article on the vast subject of "Artist". Ty 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Under WP:ELNO#13: Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. The site in question does have a bit of advertising--it is trying to sell products, which is addressed by WP:ELNO#5. The definition of 'objectionable amounts of advertising' is left for us to decide. As to self-promotion, while that may not be obviously applicable here, it is a possibility inherent in the construction of the particular site under discussion; some of the contemporary artists' pages link to their websites, so it can be construed as a vehicle for sales as much as an informative link. The fact that they share equal space with biographies of old masters ought to raise a question. This is covered under WP:EL#ADV. JNW (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- See this follow up discussion which includes artists.wikidot.com:
- --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
WHY are ALL the "examples" of artists MEN?
Sexism leads to both irrationalism and boredom.
- Plus it's just plain boring
- Actually, they're not. Ty 10:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)