On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Yes, that seems true about institutionalized titles. But titles like 'artist', 'poet', 'dancer', even 'athlete' or 'patriot' and others are often self-conferred. They are honorifics chosen by the speaker to honor something about himself: "I'm a poet, Dad!"
There seems to be a penchant to want to "upgrade" one's status, and the status that isn't earned or conferred--such as being an artist--is easier to self-confer, like Napoleon crowning himself, than a doctorate or professor's rank, which is conferred by others. As for your list of titles, I discern several different kinds in there. "Athlete" and "dancer" seem to signify a distinct set of behaviors that people associate specifically with those disciplines. (Curiously, they are both body-movement endeavors.) "Patriot" seems the most disembodied and abstract, based on claims or perceptions of one's affiliation with a country. It is comprised of a declaration and little else. "Artist" and "poet," on the other hand, seem to be dual-use words, each signifying a specific kind of activity that has a set of practices, talents, skills, canons, and the like associated specifically with it; and also designating a mind-set, a world-view or frame of reference or realm of mental and imaginative effort that is hard to quantify, to measure and record and reduce to discrete elements. "Artist" and "poet" drift toward the disembodied assertion of "patriot." (Perhaps "art" is the last refuge of scoundrels" or maybe "poetry"? <g>) "Art" and "design" are now high-value nyms to attach to other actions. "The art of the lawnmower" or "X-Stacy Nail Designs" or "Artists with mops and buckets," etc. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
