• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Musician to Artist?

fhm555

fhm555

So FOS my eyes are brown
Feb 16, 2011
13,489
20,815
#1
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
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.
 
#4
Mennolineum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
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.
 
#6
Duuuuuuuuuude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Milk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you seen all 33 parts of "Trapped in the Closet"?! How can you NOT call that a masterpiece?!
 
#9
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

original.jpg
 
#14
Duuuuuuuuuude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#15
Duuuuuuuuuude said:
I've been a as 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 are on an equal par as my work, than my work is worthless.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#18
M0ses said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#19
callofcthulhu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Creation isn't art. If a bird steps in paint and walks across a canvas–that is creation, but it's not art.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back