I'm sure people do give themselves titles but historically titles had to be conferred, deservedly or not. Hereditary titles helped to ensure continuation of power and property in monarchical or totalitarian systems. After contentious debates, in post revolutionary America it was decided that hereditary titles, an aristocracy, with or without property rights, would not be established. So we have honorific titles, essentially meaningless, or limited to private clubs and associations, given or assumed. Some titles are earned or awarded as confirmation of specific abilities, achievements, as with a judge or some such. The title of artist may be purely honorific because it can't be earned by any specific criteria and it can't be bought or sold (as with a propertied title) and it can't be inherited. It's a very fragile designation that no one can define with clarity and anyone may dispute.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 10:33:16 AM Subject: Re: Physician, heal thyself In a message dated 3/11/10 10:31:24 AM, [email protected] writes: > 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..... > I suppose someone somewhere has written a tome about the rise of "titles" as part of mens' attempts to escalate themselves above the level of the hoi polloi. The would-be "gentry" affected 'Gentleman', and 'Esq'. They used honorifics to honor themselves. I'm not sure which Shearman you're citing. I wonder if he also discerned that the creators in that high Renaissance had no complaint about that new title for them -- 'artist'.
