Musician to Artist?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by fhm555, Feb 24, 2014.


  1. fhm555

    fhm555 So FOS my eyes are brown Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Reading over the thread regards KISS' induction into the RRHOF, I got to thinking...

    When does a musician cross the line into artist territory?

    What is the criteria for rising from just another instrument beater to the higher plane of artistry?

    Strictly a personal opinion, but I think it is at the point one goes from being a musical imitator to a musical innovator. The bone in the throat of this opinion is obviously, who makes that call?
  2. Mennolineum

    Mennolineum

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    I believe everyone expressing him self with Any medium, other than social media or speaking (not talking about poetry) s an artist. I think musiscian and artist is the same, saying you are a musiscian is only defining what kind of artist you are.
  3. Mennolineum

    Mennolineum

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    You even have rip off artists, haha...
  4. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I respectfully disagree. I think it's up to the listener/viewer/etc to decide for themselves what is elevated above entertainment and novelty to achieve artistic status. It always grates on me when some pretentious band comes from a "my music is art" perspective (*cough cough Kanye*). Don't tell me what to think. I'll decide for myself what I consider art.
  5. Register to disable this ad
  6. Milk

    Milk Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2013
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    I kinda think its all art even if i hate a lot of it and some is made only for easy consumption. The thing is it's all a matter of opinions anyway, who gets to decide? It's a slippery slope.

    Now it is true some mediocre artists tend to think what they do is maybe more valuable and original than they think (remember R Kelly's In the closet? This guy actually thought he'd pretty much become some sort of great dramatic author when he wrote this ****...i saw it in an interview...), but that's their problem.
  7. M0ses

    M0ses

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Location:
    Eastern Wisconsin
    As respectfully as I can, I have to ask, what on earth gives you the right? I think it's far more pretentious to downgrade someone else's work. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but art I think is in the eye of the artist. No one said you had to like it, and yes it would be pretentious of them to tell you are wrong for not liking it. But art doesn't have to be subjectively good in order to qualify.
  8. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    What gives a musician the right to tell me what I think? What right do they have to assume their context in my life?
  9. FreeBassJunky

    FreeBassJunky

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Huntsvegas, AL
    Have you seen all 33 parts of "Trapped in the Closet"?! How can you NOT call that a masterpiece?!
  10. sound of bass

    sound of bass

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Mennolineum got it right. Expression thru any chosen meduim is art. And Art is subjective, defined only by each beholder. I was an Art major lonnnng before healthcare (which is also an art) and I know art is found in many, many mediums.....including music! I also paint, I write, I cook, and I wish I could sculpt,lol. Sooo regardless of anyone else's definition of what I AM, I consider myself an artist....who just happens to save lives in between. In fact, its all art to me.
  11. sound of bass

    sound of bass

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    NO artist tells you what to think of his work Duuuuuuude! Sure they hope they might make you feel, might make you think profoundly, but your opinion of said work rarely matters to the artist. Wether you like it or not, the artist will continue with their passion.
  12. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    You're absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But to me, if everything is art than the word art becomes meaningless. Every endeavor that aspires to be art can't be elevated to that status simply because of intention. It devalues the entire idea of art. There's an elitism inherent in the entire concept of art otherwise there is no value in being an artist. If everyone is an artist then there are no artists.
  13. sound of bass

    sound of bass

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I get your point. But you must look much deeper... .be much more philisophical about it all, to get MY point. The word "Art" is never meaningless to me personally or devalued. I respect our difference of opinion. Carry on brother.
  14. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I've been a professional artist since 1989. I've spent my entire career since I was 18 thinking about art very deeply and philosophically. My views don't come lightly. If George W Bush's paintings and my drawings are both art, then my entire career is worthless.

    [​IMG]
  15. M0ses

    M0ses

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Location:
    Eastern Wisconsin
    That is an incredibly bleak outlook. I disagree that art is devalued by being defined by intention. There is NOT an elitism inherent: it is placed there by man's ego. Why should art be about being elite, or elevating one's work. Why should you derive value from art based only on how it puts you above people? I think that's the opposite of art. That's all ego. You're only an artist because it makes you feel superior? I am an artist because I crave the beauty I hope to create. If I manage to create beauty, it in no way detracts from someone else's work, and theirs in no way detracts from mine, even if theirs is subjectively better than mine. Am I not an artist because the songs I write aren't as good as Paul McCartneys?
    If everyone was an artist, the world would be a more beautiful place. There need not be anything exclusive or elite about it.
  16. callofcthulhu

    callofcthulhu

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    And with all due respect that attitude will only hold back the advance of the species.

    Art is creation, creation is art. You can go ahead and make a distinction between good art and bad art, but if a human has put into a thing his labor, his love, his passion, and, the only resource that means anything on this planet, his time, it is art.
  17. M0ses

    M0ses

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Location:
    Eastern Wisconsin
    I will say without the slightest hesitation that George W Bush's paintings are art.
    I don't like them though.
    I haven't seen your drawings, dude, but I'm sure they're art too.
  18. M0ses

    M0ses

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Location:
    Eastern Wisconsin
    The fact that you rely that strongly on OTHER'S work to validate your own is sad to me. They don't require validation. You should be able to see the value intrinsic to your own work without having to compare it to George Bush.
  19. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    It has nothing to do with validation. It has everything to do with being unique. You can't be an artist unless someone else isn't an artist.
  20. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Creation isn't art. If a bird steps in paint and walks across a canvas–that is creation, but it's not art.
  21. Duuuuuuuuuude

    Duuuuuuuuuude

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I would say his paintings are craft

Share This Page