At different times in history or in different cultures, different kinds of people are deemed artists. It is debatable whether or not those who were artists in the Renaissance would be artists today. They could be but I suspect many of them would be laboratory scientists. Moreover, today the art concept is so pluralized to the point that some art practices fully contradict others -- yet all are arguably art. No one can say with assurance who the artist is now or what denotes art, except to be extremely exclusive or extremely inclusive. No one can say what skills or habits or concepts are specific to artists and art. This disciplinary anarchy may not be all bad even if in contrast to other disciplines it appears to be aimless and empty. After all, lots of art is being made every day and it is contextualized across the spectrum from the traditional to the most transgressive.
Most discussions of art assume a romanticized identity of the artist and that happens to harmonize best with the American myth of individualism, freedom and virtue. The reality is that artists are in fact less free than many because they are heavily dependent on the conformist cultural and economic pressures which they need to critique in order to define themselves as artists. Artists used to be known by their work, by what they did as art. That's still true for many but it's a weakening position in a very crowded and confused field. Many artists are now known by how they identify themselves as artists, by the stances they try assume in relation to culture. They want those stances to effect criticality, to expose truth. The stances must always be "unapproved" in order to be critical. How can one ratify unapproved stances -- as in art academia -- without approving them? The monetized imperialism of a market society converts all criticality into approved product and thus continually erases reality to sustain myths as if they were reality. Today's dilemma: If you want to make art, don't try to be an artist. If you want to be an artist don't try to make art. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 9:31:12 AM Subject: Re: Physician, heal thyself In a message dated 3/10/10 12:06:40 AM, [email protected] writes: > YOU were the guy who first > recognized -- not at kitchen table but polite dining room table usage-- > the use > of a term 'artist' as an HONORIFIC. Be assured that at an academic long > table I would never use the term 'artist' as though there were a > mind-independent category I were citing. > Shearman seems to think use of the word artist as an honorific for artisans making images was sometime during the High Renaissance, when people who wanted the things began holding the people who made them in higher esteem..... Kate Sullivan
