I heard Art is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration but you're worth tonnes more money after your expiration.

 

SyNtH

I agree that strictly technically any person who produces art may be called an artist. Yet it's a very narrow definition. It's not a simple technical definition that concerns me, it's the sense load of the word "artist", it's what stands behind it. If a person produces some kind of art, whatever it is, and says he's an artist in this particular genre, how do we know if he's telling the truth or he's pretending to be one? Could we proclaim his art a high form of art just because we personally enjoy listening to it or observing it? That would be subjective, no? Instead of evaluating it in prism of one's personal taste, we have the finest examples in every art form out there, that we could refer to as masterpieces and high quality works. These are the classical, historical forms, almost perfect in their execution. Whenever someone tells me: "Hey, listen, this is a great progressive rock band", in my mind I have visions of what is "great progressive rock band". It may be unintentional, but it's inevitable. "Great progressive rock" = in an instant all the great progressive rock bands of 70's are before my eyes, in my ears, in my memory. And it's not just my own personal reference, I think pretty much every intelligent person out there agrees the albums of Floyd, Genesis, Yes, Rush, Crimson, Camel, ELP, ELO, VDGG, should easily make it into the all-time progressive rock greats ever. Whenever someone tells me: "Lets go to a gallery, there's an exhibition of human portraits, there's this painter, he's amazing, he's this, he's that", in my mind I have a great memory of Rembrandt and Van Eyck, Raphael and da Vinci, Velasquez. My view may be conservative, but this is how I define a true art and how I separate talent from wannabe.

 

DarthFader

Kudos, great line. And it's true. Many great composers and painters died poor and hungry when today people make a good fortune selling their paintings and playing their compositions. If these people were alive today, they would be billionaires, no less. But no one wanted them back then, they were rejects. It's a brutal irony of life. It's very sad if you really think of it. I hope the remaining estates of these artists get a fair share these days. At least their descendants and inheritors can have a great life. Not all was in vain.

 

Last edited: Jul 12, 2016

Yes it would be subjective, thats basically the majority of my point...

So its a matter of who came first and who created the founding fathers of the genre are? Im not denying their status at all, its just a very snapshot time dependant way of looking at music. Why is it perfection? because it came first? To me thats more of a personal subjective view then anything else. I know in that list you mentioned was based on a specific period (70's), but what about any other modern progressive rock bands today? Why arent those considered great/artists too? Were the right instruments and mixing technicians there at the right time? Note the history of rock was basically blues before it was created and named as a genre. So basically that music that was in that period spanning into rock cant be called rock and should be called blues? Is it bad because it didnt conform to the same traits as blues? Evidently not because many people enjoy rock and even that managed to spawn new genres like metal etc. Im trying to make you see that there is a constant period of evolution in genres and that we as listeners shouldnt disqualify some art because it cant be shoehorned into a genre yet or doesnt conform to the same standards, and instead has different ones.

It's the same people with this mindset that only listen to jungle which was the founding of DNB as a genre, yet it has changed so much since its creation/inception. The evolution of that DNB as a genre over 30ish years has already spawned a slew of sub-genres,of which i enjoy it all.

Of course the age of the internet is going to lower the barrier to creators and is going to spawn a slew of shit, but there are still diamonds out there in all forms of art. It just takes a bit of digging on the net to find them.

 

Unless you're Damien Hirst then art could be 10% inspiration and 90% urination.

 

Not because it came first, it could come first and still be generic. Not only they came first, they've established the rules of the game, they set the bar damn high. And they've influenced all the modern bands. I don't think modern bands will ever deny the influence. And the influence is a critical thing. Many times I've heard musicians say: "If it wasn't for that particular band or bands, our band would not exist". Yes, there are good progressive rock bands out there today, but none of them tops the bands that came before them. I'm yet to hear something that will have the same impact on me as the music I've already mentioned. To me it's not only about music, experience of listening to things like DSOTM and The Wall still have a very personal effect on me, which goes beyond of just music. It's the experience and impact that I miss. I've heard middle age musicians say modern guys don't inspire them as much as the older guys did. I guess I'm in my "alcohol soft middle age", as Roger Waters would say, and I don't appreciate "the evolution of genres", you talk about, as much as you do. For instance, one of my relatives enjoys jazzcore and tells me it's the best thing ever in music. Me, personally, I don't get it. I'd take my Miles Davis and Coltrane anytime over this bastardization of jazz, kindly brought to me by the so-called "the evolution of genres" by mixing two components that don't match well, obviously. Simply, I don't like my tea mixed with a coffee, I'd take them separately please, thank you.

 

Like i previously mentioned, blues players could say the same thing about their influence about rock! Its the same thing, and the africans that had tribal music before popularising blues could be saying the same thing about the blues that came before that in the 1900's. Why does stop at the first root if those newer sounds wouldn't have even existed without the foundational blocks when we can go further back?

Its like saying I dont like rhythm and blues together and that they can only be enjoyed separated, yet its obvious that this genre of two separate forms of music can exist combined and was/is enjoyed by many. Does that not make sense? I dont get why it has to be seen as such a contrasting perspective with your analogy, who knows what combinations of music that are yet to come? I am optimistic about the future of music, not in a state of mind in thinking that all the amazing things have already been done and there's little left to enjoy.

 

There is a difference. Rhythm and blues match fine, jazz and metalcore don't. All these modern genres of XXI century come from the void, the questionable necessity to fill that void, because people are trying to come up with something new in music to fill that void and bring some excitement and freshness to the table, but it's not working. Still, it's a "new genre" for the sake of a "new genre". It's not a great invention, it's a fabrication, a concoction. That's all that is to it. It doesn't hold any great musical value. Jazz does hold value. Metal does. Jazzcore doesn't. It's not a pure form, it's a bastardization and simply not a good mix of musical styles. Some styles mix, some don't. That's all.

I'm glad you have such a positive thinking when it comes to the future of music, but sadly, I don't share it. It seems we have fundamentally different thinking when it comes to the evaluation of music. That's fine by me, I don't mean to shove my vision of things down your throat and I don't want you to do the same to me. I see your point, you see mine.

Thanks for the conversation, I've quite enjoyed it. Good night!

 

This was written by a metal band, i would definitely say it has both metal and jazz and even flamenco roots in, i think it gels together quite nicely, (obviously like we both mentioned a taste thing).

Has been an interesting discussion! Cheers, peace out.

 

Touché

 

this is a question that is as deep or as shallow as you want it to be.
i still find it difficult to answer directly. sure, on here hiding behind anonymity, i will say yes. in the everyday i am more reticent in my answer mainly because we live in a capitalist consumer society where art, for most, means zilch in the 'real world'. it still irritates my folks that, when faced with the fork in the road to carry on the 9 - 5 ( or the 6 till 6 - i have done many '9'-5s) or to give myself a chance to try and find out what i actually wanted to do, when i turned 30 i went to uni to study art and music. and it was the best thing i have ever done ( aside from the fact you have to sell your soul to the student loans co. to get there and probably experience elation and depression in equal measure, sometimes on the same day. you have to be very robust mentally and i just got through ). and today, i still do not earn money in a regular enough fashion although the times in my life i have had money has been earned from my art and music which i've usually ploughed it straight in buying equipment and materials and rent if i can spare it. today, i spend half my time painting etc, half doing music and even though i am in eternal penury i am glad i took this route. but i have to remember i am actually doing things i love and i feel i have some talent , enough to risk this horrible oppression of having to earn money in the real world and not feeling able to answer in the affirmative that yes, I AM AN ARTIST because such activity is not going to earn you a crust, buy a house , have a family etc...,
i guess i would confess, i am an artist. what i do is unique to me i think, and to my mind that is a very central facet of art. i think everyone has the ability to create or recreate the world through there own idiosyncratic art. which means many if not ALL people have this latent talent, but, most people work and that yoke will absolutely drain that energy out of you. i know i went for years sometimes, working and finding no energy to do stuff outside of those jobs. ultimately i became incredibly depressed aware that i was actually squandering my good energy and gifts in order to earn enough to pay rent and have a few drinks on the weekend. it still bothers me that money is the most important ingredient of our society but you do not need money to express yourself and be creative but the 9-5 will bleed you dry of creative energy every single time. even part time jobs are hard on that. i just decided that i could face a live materially impoverished, but i can live with myself at what i have the freedom to do.
the answer to this question for me is, it's up to others to apply this term. i have a bunch of friends and family that tell me i am an artist. so on this occasion i will answer yes.
i cannot remember the exact quote but i remember reading an essay about Joseph Beuys in uni where he said, " there is no room for brotherhood in economics" and saying in essence our sociopolitics have had their go at ruling society, now it's time to let creativity have a go. pie in the sky, but makes me wonder...
what was the question again?

 

Sounds great, but sociopolitical aspirants rule "buy" the sword whereas art informs by the pen. The pen is mightier than the sword is a great fall-back until the sword cuts off your head, the pen falling to the floor, bouncing on the ground in a mini drum roll salute to signal the demise of the artist. "Living underground is not like living up above as you see no faces smiling while you're living like a grub" is a lyric to an old song which I wrote in which I explored this phenomenon. I hope that the time will not come for the most of us, when real art and artists must duck lest be steamrolled into "remember when", then shortly later being out of the popular consciousnes like we never existed. "Artcrime alert, have you seen this dangerous person...."

 

Do i consider myself as an artist? Yes every morning, when i stay from bed, looking into the mirror in bathroom and see Brad Pit on the other side. And when my wife stay from bed, i still see hot young women

 

I, somewhat, agree with you.
A lot of people may jump to the idea of them being 'artists' because they express themselves and abide by the definition of an artist. But many people love the idea of being an artist rather than actually being a true artist. As we progress many types of art-forms have almost already been taken. To be unique it's getting harder. To truly standout, it has gotten harder. I say to myself i'm an artist, however I think till people are amazed and moved by my work (art) i can't really claim to be an artist. Otherwise everyone in my eyes is an artist, since you can call anything an art, from playing football to painting. If I'm that amazed by something like a footballer standing out from the rest of the World, I see it as art and that footballer is an artist. They may see movement as shapes and it's natural to them, motion and swift movement, it's art. Because he/she inspires, sets the genre apart from others, grips my attention, and almost makes me dream. I think everyone is capable of producing something great, but a true artist will be able to amaze a World and inspire.

That being said, I claim to be an artist, because I have a lot of music I produce and create that feels different and puts me and others that have heard it in a certain mood, it triggers some emotions and can change someones feelings. However what I usually show or publish will be typical pop (not cookie cutter pop) but i don't claim that this is art. I always think that someday (soon), my music will be heard by more and more people to the point it could even be playing in the background and bring 2 people together to fall in love, or even make love and produce a baby. To me that's art. If my music can make such a great impact on this World then I think that, is art. It stands out above others. Your ideas and processes to create that piece of work have been the catalyst to create life. When I can make an impact on this World, whether it be life, or just make people happy... I won't have to call myself an artist. Everyone else will.

 

fuck man you guys didn't have to go full philosophical on this matter...

 

Are oil paints still toxic? I've not done analogue painting mostly because of the exposures I thought I'd get...btw, The Pet Detective guy, I saw on some documentary has this huge arts painting studio with a bin of tubes of paint so large you could swim in it. His art is crap, but I think painting saved his life...wish I could remember what show that was...

Oh, crap. Back to the question at hand: Doing both at once (painting and music) is called movies, depending on the Cinematographer's (and director's) perspective. They sometimes literally frame each scene like a painting, then there's another school that says you lose the movie in the process of each frame if you do that. It's funny to watch the arguments for and against.

I'm actually in the sound world because, "the ears lead the senses" and the more I can see and hear, the more I agree with that. I'm a machinima guy, cause actors have been obsolete since 2008.

And wtf hasn't my avatar picture changed? I've changed it yesterday for my birthday and it's not there. The pics have to be approved? nvm, it changed!

@Wurlie Rocker, @Pinkman The Elite Brits have a saying, "Sandles to Sandles in 3 generations." Meaning, there is the self made man who began in sandles, the kids inherit and piss it all away, and then their kids are back in sandles.

 

Last edited: Jul 13, 2016

"The life of an artist is not a state of “being.” It even sounds pretentious, sometimes, to call oneself blanketly “an artist.” It’s not up to you or me to give ourselves that title. A doctor becomes a doctor because he or she is formally given an MD. A scholar in the university is formally given a PhD, a counselor an LLD, a hairstylist a license, and so forth... We are on the fringe, and we don’t get such licenses. There are prizes and rewards, popularity and good or bad press. But you have to be your own judge. That, in and of itself, takes discipline, and clarity, and objectivity. Given the fact that we are not “credentialed” by any institution that even pretends to be objective, it is harder to make our guild. True, some schools and universities give a degree for a course of study. But that’s a business transaction and ultimately not enough to make you an “artist.”
ANNA DEAVERE SMITH

 

Fartist for sure!