Are you an Artist? Read this...

all2most

Hello to all who read this. I would like to say, first of all, that I am not an Artist. An Artist has many definitions, but my view is that an Artist is a person you dedicates his or her life to a burning creative compultion within - No, I am not an Artist. I don't have the capacity to give myself truly and wholly to my creative talent that lies within. I do not have the integrity, I am a layabout and a bore, bull****ing the best of the bull****ers in bull**** corner - no, I am not an Artist. But I want to change. And I would like to inform you why! There are to many distractions, decisions, delays, dismays and disillusions that I cannot ignore. When I think of Music or Poetry, Literature or Painting; I think of boring hard work, only achived to help educate those who are curious to seek out the mysteries of the world that surrounds them. I see the bias in the music industry, I see self-intitlement of self-proclaiming Poets and writers, and not to mention "modern artists". "Someone is controling who makes it and who doesn't" - Charles Bukowski said that. I believe him. There is no "Art for Arts sake" people. There is only "Art for what it's worth". Even Banksy the graffiti Artist sold out... There is no Art for Arts sake. And the industry you work in want you to think otherwise. They want you to take insperation in someone THEY PUT THEIR and buy into the way of life of these people, to make you feel like an "individual". And the whole rat race goes on. The very life you sought to avoid is mesured by the life you try to keep up with. Where is the individuality in that? This is no revelation! Every day in Dublin, Music shops sells guitars, yet the stages and dance floors are empty. The top 10 selling books in the shop windows never sell, yet, those who wrote them are rich. Poetry is exclusively exclusive to those who don't write about Irish folklore (presumably for the American market). And Art (paintings) as history shows is, is bought by people who have more money than sense. I want to change this. I offer no explanation how. That is up to you, the Artist, and me

To the moderaters
Please re-post if this post is on the wrong board
Although I want to seek the opinions of Musicians primarily

Waking-Dreams

I’m familiar with the “true artist” notion; someone who dedicates their life to art (music, art, poetry, etc) is more authentic or worthy and you come across this kind of mentality from people who either are obsessed with making art define their lives or who just think it’s cool be that way. I’m sure there are many who believe that a musician is not considered “true” unless they dedicate themselves to serving music. But you have to realise just how elitist that sounds.

It’s nothing more than self-indulgent status-seeking. ‘Yeah, we’re part of the true musician club because we dedicate our lives to it.’ This only works so long as there are lots of people who don’t dedicate themselves to serving music. Because if everyone started doing that, the “true” musicians would have to come up with another form of distinction, so as to be able to set themselves apart from the rest.

MilanPan!c

Decided to reformat and spellcheck this, so that I COULD read it.

Hello to all who read this.

I would like to say, first of all, that I am not an Artist. An Artist has many definitions, but my view is that an Artist is a person you dedicates his or her life to a burning creative compulsion within - No, I am not an Artist.

I don't have the capacity to give myself truly and wholly to my creative talent that lies within.

I do not have the integrity

I am a layabout and a bore, bull****ing the best of the bull****ers in bull**** corner - no, I am not an Artist.

But I want to change and I would like to inform you why. There are to many distractions, decisions, delays, dismays and disillusions that I cannot ignore. When I think of Music or Poetry, Literature or Painting, I think of boring hard work, only achieved to help educate those who are curious to seek out the mysteries of the world that surrounds them. I see the bias in the music industry, I see self-entitlement of self-proclaiming Poets and writers, and not to mention "modern artists".

"Someone is controlling who makes it and who doesn't" - Charles Bukowski said that. I believe him. There is no "Art for Arts sake" people. There is only "Art for what it's worth". Even Banksy the graffiti Artist sold out... There is no Art for Arts sake.

And the industry you work in want you to think otherwise. They want you to find inspiration from someone THEY PUT THERE and buy into the way of life of these people, to make you feel like an "individual". And the whole rat race goes on.

The very life you sought to avoid is measured by the life you try to keep up with. Where is the individuality in that?

This is no revelation! Every day in Dublin, Music shops sells guitars, yet the stages and dance floors are empty. The top 10 selling books in the shop windows never sell, yet, those who wrote them are rich. Poetry is exclusively exclusive to those who don't write about Irish folklore (presumably for the American market). And Art (paintings) as history shows is, is bought by people who have more money than sense. I want to change this. I offer no explanation how. That is up to you, the Artist, and me

To the moderators, I am primarily seeking the opinions of Musicians. Please re-post if this post is on the wrong sub-forum.

---

OK, now it's legible, but unfortunately that only highlights the fact that it was (hopefully) just a nonsensical (drunken?) rant.

So much of this post is untrue. For example. The best selling books do indeed "sell". The clubs and pub and venues are full of gigs and people dancing. But most importantly, the OP has misread history; there was NEVER a time, in all of modern history, when music and art where not seen as commercial products.

Finally, the OP has stated, probably accidentally, the real reason for this rant: he doesn't have the courage to be an artist, and that annoys him.

I don't have the capacity to give myself truly and wholly to my creative talent that lies within.

The truth is it's not a "capacity" issue; it's a courage issue. There's plenty of real artists that do suffer, every single day, to make a living at art/creatively. Those guys/gals don't need someone who's not brave enough to give it a go telling them that they are, "sell-outs".

So it's self-criticism, wrapped in an inaccurate rant about art as commerce.

Meh.

Major Lovechild

all2most wrote: »

Hello to all who read this. I would like to say, first of all, that I am not an Artist. An Artist has many definitions, but my view is that an Artist is a person you dedicates his or her life to a burning creative compultion within - No, I am not an Artist. I don't have the capacity to give myself truly and wholly to my creative talent that lies within. I do not have the integrity, I am a layabout and a bore, bull****ing the best of the bull****ers in bull**** corner - no, I am not an Artist. But I want to change. And I would like to inform you why! There are to many distractions, decisions, delays, dismays and disillusions that I cannot ignore. When I think of Music or Poetry, Literature or Painting; I think of boring hard work, only achived to help educate those who are curious to seek out the mysteries of the world that surrounds them. I see the bias in the music industry, I see self-intitlement of self-proclaiming Poets and writers, and not to mention "modern artists". "Someone is controling who makes it and who doesn't" - Charles Bukowski said that. I believe him. There is no "Art for Arts sake" people. There is only "Art for what it's worth". Even Banksy the graffiti Artist sold out... There is no Art for Arts sake. And the industry you work in want you to think otherwise. They want you to take insperation in someone THEY PUT THEIR and buy into the way of life of these people, to make you feel like an "individual". And the whole rat race goes on. The very life you sought to avoid is mesured by the life you try to keep up with. Where is the individuality in that? This is no revelation! Every day in Dublin, Music shops sells guitars, yet the stages and dance floors are empty. The top 10 selling books in the shop windows never sell, yet, those who wrote them are rich. Poetry is exclusively exclusive to those who don't write about Irish folklore (presumably for the American market). And Art (paintings) as history shows is, is bought by people who have more money than sense. I want to change this. I offer no explanation how. That is up to you, the Artist, and me

To the moderaters
Please re-post if this post is on the wrong board
Although I want to seek the opinions of Musicians primarily

So you're not an artist then?

MilanPan!c

Major Lovechild wrote: »

So you're not an artist then?

His post could be summed up as:

I am a cowardly, bull****ting, layabout and bore.

"Art" is all bull**** and a commodity.

I want to change all of this, but I have no idea how.

Oh and things that ARE best sellers AREN'T selling(?!) and venues are all devoid of music and punters.

Waking-Dreams

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The truth is it's not a "capacity" issue; it's a courage issue. There's plenty of real artists that do suffer, every single day, to make a living at art/creatively. Those guys/gals don't need someone who's not brave enough to give it a go telling them that they are, "sell-outs".

I agree with you on the sell-out slur; it's nonsense and is usually fuled by the envy of underachievers BUT:

Courage….........? or just stupidity?

It’s about the only thing I agree with in the OP. Having the capacity to dedicate your life to art is not something everyone has at their disposal.

If artists struggling to make a euro to support themselves, perpetually borrowing money from their wives/girlfriend/parents to get by, they’re more than welcome to think of themselves as ‘courageous’ for being a ‘true’ artist but I just don’t see it that way. Indeed, there are all kinds of tiers where people try and make money through music while holding down steady jobs, so that’s a much different scenario and one I can respect.

But I gather the impression people get from the “dedicating your life to music” means just that, “all or nothing; this is my life; I can’t be anything else”.

Would people think of the poker player going to tournaments making small wins, courageous or just someone caught up in their own innate desires?

I think the words: courageous, passionate, faith, dedicated, self-belief, etc., are all just buzz words many musicians like to list off when they talk about themselves.

But it’s all in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Someone who puts €1,000 on a horse is seen as an idiot to some, while others will look at him as being courageous.

Some people don’t have the capacity to give themselves to trying to make a living or even making a semi-career from music because it can involve having to sacrifice a lot in return.

That said, I don’t agree that it gives them cart blanche to just take a dump on the system for not bending to their needs but at the same time, let’s be honest about it... the people who do want a career from music in this day and age must surely accept how much more difficult it has become, laced with financial pitfalls at most turns. So trying to project courage onto risky decisions is a bit daft. Over-confidence has its downfalls no matter how you dress it up.

patjackman

As someone who has been a musician for thirty years, and who has worked within the Arts industry full time for over ten, I felt I had to comment about your posting.

The history of the artist is largely one of individuals being paid to provide a service. During the Renaissance, regarded as one of the cultural high points of European history, the vast majority of the artists we still know today such as Leonardo, Michelangelo, Botticelli, Caravaggio, Titian, Donatello, were members of guilds, along with many other trades and tradesmen. In fact, the word "artist" shares its root with the word "artisan", which means "craftsman".

The notion that a successful artist should be a free spirit, unburdened by commercial concerns, able to make decisions without referencing a pay master is not only very new, relatively speaking, but is not really commercial viable. I mean, a body has to live! In order to fund the amount of time it takes to get to the top of your game, you need to do work that pays, simple as. Even in terms of musicians, the vast majority of the long term, successful musicians I have known and worked with who wished to be full time musicians, have played in cover bands.

And if anyone at this point feels like saying "Van Gogh", who did not receive money for any of his paintings over his lifetime, I would like to remind them that his brother did largely support him financially throughout his life. He didn't live in splendid isolation, somehow living off of generous, mystical benefactors who feed him over the course of his life for purely for philanthropic reasons.

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune". Fair enough. But the notion that this somehow significantly changes the art is bull. Even the most esoteric art forms follow a popular flow. The vast majority of European artists throughout history were either funded by the Church or royalty. The Church commissioned major works simply to get bums on seats. Royalty paid artists not only to flatter their egos, but also to guide popular opinion.

Simply, what guides a lot of arts practice is popularity, and you cannot fool all the people all the time. Furthermore, if poets do not focus on Irish folklore (and some indeed do), if top selling books don't sell (wha??), if clubs and stages are empty, it is because people simply do not want to go. And if you don't like that, educate them. Or, as you succinctly put it, "I think of boring hard work, only achived to help educate those who are curious to seek out the mysteries of the world that surrounds them."

It seems you want the kind of art that you like, and are prepared to dismiss that which you do not like or understand. Fair enough, but people make the exact same decision when they do not go clubbing, write poetry about Cúchulainn or buy books. You have to cut them the same latitude.

As for "Arts for Arts sakes", there are very many artists who practice their arts for nothing, in the privacy of their own homes, or as part of the very many amateur groups of various types around our country. I do it myself, and enjoy it immensely. People won't hear what I do. Quite frankly, most of it I wouldn't want anyone to see!

Finally, nothing comes out of nothing. The artists I work with are incredibly hard working, more often than not for long hours, and for an amount that doesn't relate to both the amount of work they have done, or the the training they have undertaken over the years. Untalented, lazy, bull****ters like me have to work even harder to get by. Take a leaf...

MilanPan!c

Hey WD,

I agree with you, I'm only using courage to define what the OP was claiming was missing (e.g. people will to make art for no profit).

If he wants to make non-commercial art the only thing missing is his courage to do it.

NukaCola

MilanPan!c wrote: »

His post could be summed up as:

I am a cowardly, bull****ting, layabout and bore.

"Art" is all bull**** and a commodity.

I want to change all of this, but I have no idea how.

Oh and things that ARE best sellers AREN'T selling(?!) and venues are all devoid of music and punters.

You got all that from that post?

DrFroggies

MilanPan!c wrote: »

OK, now it's legible, but unfortunately that only highlights the fact that it was (hopefully) just a nonsensical (drunken?) rant.

I suspect it was!

Next up: 'The f**k*d up thing about women/men/Ireland is...'

all2most

bump

drumdrum

I agree with MilanPanic and Waking-Dreams so I see no point in re-iterating their above points. Great posts guys, +1!

patjackman wrote: »

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune". Fair enough. But the notion that this somehow significantly changes the art is bull. Even the most esoteric art forms follow a popular flow. The vast majority of European artists throughout history were either funded by the Church or royalty. The Church commissioned major works simply to get bums on seats. Royalty paid artists not only to flatter their egos, but also to guide popular opinion.

Hmm....maybe this applies to some forms of art, but with popular music and the whole record company controlling scene, this is not quite true. Granted, you have given leeway to alternative arguements ("significantly"...) but perhaps you aren't aware of how influential record execs are on the "creative process".

Often times a label exec will have direct influence in the creative process in order to ensure that the song remains comercial sounding. You'd be surprised at how often songs are re-structured by labels to sound more "radio friendly".

Its the man with the coin purse dictating how they want the song to be re-crafted for a wider commercial appeal. The "royalty" now dictating popular "opinion" is now the radios who only play specific types of music on the airwaves, and most of the time the music is not Irish!

patjackman wrote: »

Finally, nothing comes out of nothing. The artists I work with are incredibly hard working, more often than not for long hours, and for an amount that doesn't relate to both the amount of work they have done, or the the training they have undertaken over the years. Untalented, lazy, bull****ters like me have to work even harder to get by. Take a leaf...

Very true. Most of the best artists of any form spend years and years, not to mention thousands of euro, improving their craft. Natural talent will always be a factor....people aren't communists....we are not all equal! Someone who spends 20 years playing drums may lose out to the guy whos been playing them for 5 years for any number of reasons outside of talent. Some gigs / jobs dont require a very high level of skill so the field becomes a lot broader to choose from. Competition is already very high in the art world, and jobs are scarce. Hence in order to live, most musicians I know that would easily be above "professional" level hold down a 9-5 so they can put food on the table and do their art by night.
Is it ideal? perhaps not. Is it essential for living? Absolutely.

patjackman wrote: »

As for "Arts for Arts sakes", there are very many artists who practice their arts for nothing, in the privacy of their own homes, or as part of the very many amateur groups of various types around our country. I do it myself, and enjoy it immensely. People won't hear what I do. Quite frankly, most of it I wouldn't want anyone to see!

+1!!

@OP: whether this is indeed a drunken post, or a rant/vent of elitest and naive views, the bottom line is that especially in a over-saturated industry, in a tiny little market called Ireland, it is extremely hard to "make it" in the music industry. For every band you see on TV, there are a few guaranteed thousands of other artists that didn't "make it". Thats life! It aint fair, and seemingly even more so for musicians!
These days, having the music isn't enough. You need drive, passion (NOT to be confused with obsession!), talent, a good suitable image, a decent product, a decent business ethos, good lucks - shallow as it seems - ....and even THEN there are no guarantees.
If you want to be a professional rockstar or whatever, thats great, its nice to have a dream.....but just don't pursue it at the cost of being happy in life, whether that means needing a job to fund living expenses at the same time. If you do "make it", then great but just dont hold your breath and see the world pass by.....

(I'm just up...need coffee.... )

Malice

all2most I've read your first post twice now and I'm still no nearer figuring out what the purpose of this thread is. You don't seem to be asking a question or looking for advice. It just seems to be a rant.

NukaCola

all2most wrote: »

bump

Why are you bumping this thread......

Its nonsense....

MilanPan!c

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Why are you bumping this thread......

Its nonsense....

You gotta assume that if this wasn't a drunken rant, considering the basically incoherent nature of the initial post, and considering the bump, the OP is either a troll, a confused teen, or someone with larger issues.

Or maybe it was a drunken bump.

NukaCola

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You gotta assume that if this wasn't a drunken rant, considering the basically incoherent nature of the initial post, and considering the bump, the OP is either a troll, a confused teen, or someone with larger issues.

Or maybe it was a drunken bump.

Bump on the head by the sounds of things

all2most

Hello again.

Thank you to those who took the time in reading my thread. Though I see that a lot of you missed the point of it. Great Art is born of great vision and of great understanding. The point of my thread was not to start a debate on whether my spelling/syntax/puntuation/grammar, or whatever, was "good", or to become a target of those who would denounce me as under the influence of alcohol, or a nonsensical ranter while writing it, and those that did, they should take a good look at their own writing before they start giving free writing lessons. All Art provokes a reaction, and even ignorance is a reaction. Over 300 people have had the curiousity to click onto my thread titled "Are you an Artist, read this" and I salute each and everyone of you for your inquisitiveness, which is the birth of all Art! Some of you have taken a real interest in what I have said, giving their own personal opinions and I'm sorry that I cannot answer to you all but I will try my best here to clarify my thread.

On the point of Art being useless unless it has a commercial viability, I would have to say that I'm all for Art being sold. All tradespeople should be paid for the work he or she has done. When I mentioned "Art for what its worth", I was making the assertion that (Art) is often made into a lofty entity by those who see commercial value in it, and sell in a variety of ways for public consumption which often ostracises (mostly through copywrite) other Art or Artists who work within the same sphere. In my opinion, what cost a piece of Art should merit is up to the buyer and not the artist, and not the middle men (record labels, publishers, gallerys etc.. deciding what it should cost the public. This view is very idealistic, I know, considering these middle men are now so rich from robbing Artists and the public that they now create most of the Art we purchase!

Well, as the old cliche goes "everyman has his price." Even if it is no money at all...

NukaCola

Ok to sum up....

all2most wrote: »

Hello to all who read this. I would like to say, first of all, that I am not an Artist. An Artist has many definitions, but my view is that an Artist is a person you dedicates his or her life to a burning creative compultion within - No, I am not an Artist.

Right, so you are not an artist...... Moving on..

all2most wrote: »

I don't have the capacity to give myself truly and wholly to my creative talent that lies within. I do not have the integrity, I am a layabout and a bore, bull****ing the best of the bull****ers in bull**** corner - no, I am not an Artist.

Ok...you have already stated that you are not an artist.
But you are a boring bull****ter....which is already becoming apparent from your first 2 paragraphs...

all2most wrote: »

But I want to change. And I would like to inform you why! There are to many distractions, decisions, delays, dismays and disillusions that I cannot ignore. When I think of Music or Poetry, Literature or Painting; I think of boring hard work, only achived to help educate those who are curious to seek out the mysteries of the world that surrounds them.

Ok....this whole paragraph is just ramblings trying, IMO, to seem like poetic musings.....Literature and Painting are so much more than what you describe and i'll gladly discuss why i think so if you are to reply to this....

all2most wrote: »

I see the bias in the music industry, I see self-intitlement of self-proclaiming Poets and writers, and not to mention "modern artists". "Someone is controling who makes it and who doesn't" - Charles Bukowski said that. I believe him. There is no "Art for Arts sake" people. There is only "Art for what it's worth". Even Banksy the graffiti Artist sold out... There is no Art for Arts sake. And the industry you work in want you to think otherwise. They want you to take insperation in someone THEY PUT THEIR and buy into the way of life of these people, to make you feel like an "individual". And the whole rat race goes on.

Again mostly ramblings but as you have stated you are not an artist, what do you know of Art for Arts sake? Stating the obvious re The Music Industry, you yourself come across as terribly naive...

all2most wrote: »

The very life you sought to avoid is mesured by the life you try to keep up with. Where is the individuality in that? This is no revelation! Every day in Dublin, Music shops sells guitars, yet the stages and dance floors are empty. The top 10 selling books in the shop windows never sell, yet, those who wrote them are rich. Poetry is exclusively exclusive to those who don't write about Irish folklore (presumably for the American market). And Art (paintings) as history shows is, is bought by people who have more money than sense. I want to change this. I offer no explanation how. That is up to you, the Artist, and me

Again more ramblings trying to come across as profound, but ultimately preachy and clueless.

You have no idea what you want to change or even how to do it. You yourself say your layabout and complain about hard work. You will change nothing.

This post is a request for what exactly? Return of an artistic renaissance? Only artists can bring about a change like this and as you said, you are not an artist....

all2most wrote: »

Hello again.
Thank you to those who took the time in reading my thread. Though I see that a lot of you have missed the point of it. Great Art is born of great vision and of great understanding. The point of my thread was not to start a debate on whether my spelling/syntax/puntuation/grammar, or whatever, was "good", or to become a target of those who would denounce me as under the influence of alcohol, or a nonsensical ranter while writing it, and those that did, they should take a good look at their own writing before they start giving free writing lessons. All Art provokes a reaction, and even your ignorance is a reaction. Over 300 people have had the curiousity to click onto my thread titled "Are you an Artist, read this" and I salute each and everyone of you for your inquisitiveness, which is the birth of all Art! Some of you have taken a real interest in what I have said, giving your own personal opinions and I'm sorry that I cannot answer to you all but I will try my best here to clarify my thread.

Do you really believe the words you are typing? Have you reread your original post. It is quite logical to assume you were drunk reading the tone and language you used in the post. Ignorance is something i could bet you have an lot of. To call your post art is the definition of stupidity IMO.

all2most wrote: »

On the point of Art being useless unless it has a commercial viability, I would have to say that I'm all for Art being sold. All tradespeople should be paid for the work he or she has done. When I mentioned "Art for what its worth", I was making the assertion that (Art) is often made into a lofty entity by those who seek high commercial value from it, and selling it in a variety of ways for public consumption often ostracises (mostly through copyright) other Artists who work within the same sphere. In my opinion, what cost a piece of Art should merit is up to the buyer and not the artist, and certainly not the middle men (record labels, publishers, gallerys etc.. deciding what it should cost the public. This view is very idealistic, I know, considering these middle men are now so rich from robbing Artists and the public that they now create most of the Art we purchase!

Well, as the old cliche goes "everyman has his price." Even if it is no money at all...:eek:

This thread is a waste of time.....and you have shown yourself up to be the bull****ter you yourself confessed to be...

all2most

Hi there!
got a poll going, so please vote!

NukaCola

Please pick me up on any points you wish to discuss, wheter you think i'm wrong or not....this is your thread after all...

all2most

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Please pick me up on any points you wish to discuss, wheter you think i'm wrong or not....this is your thread after all...

Glad i got to quote you before you edited your post...

You must be joking! You're too immature to talk to me...

Why don't you just write that I'm drunk or bumping my head instead...

NukaCola

all2most wrote: »

You must be joking! You're too immature to talk to me...

Why don't you just write that I'm drunk or bumping my head instead...

If you dont want to discuss your points dont post on a public forum.
All my points are valid...

NukaCola

all2most wrote: »

Hi there!
got a poll going, so please vote!

To vote on what?
Your ramblings?
Where's the insanity option.....

MilanPan!c

Based on the poll (and the second big babble) I'm gonna assume the OP is a troll.

Look at the poll; your options are:

thumbs up to agree or disagree
thumbs down to agree or disagree


Those options obviously make no sense at all, and I must assume the OP knows this and is essentially trying to set up respondants for some 'hilarious' prank.

Waking-Dreams

all2most wrote: »

Over 300 people have had the curiousity to click onto my thread titled "Are you an Artist, read this" and I salute each and everyone of you for your inquisitiveness, which is the birth of all Art!

I really don’t think the view count of this thread is representative of the number of separate people who have clicked on it. Rather is reflects how many clicks it has received overall (which can come from the same people looking at the thread and its replies multiple times).

Anyways, I think you need to focus on what your premise and conclusions are. There’s just a lot of free association going on. All posts need a structure, just like an essay: a beginning, a middle and an end.

All art has a raison d'être and likewise, decent posts should have one too besides just getting people to think.

Malice

This thread is going nowhere fast and I'm locking it now before I end up having to dish out infractions for abuse. OP please PM me with a summary of exactly what the point of this thread is if you want it re-opened. This is not a forum for nonsensical ranting.