English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Lawyers and doctors require certain qualifications and I have difficulty accepting that artists don't; that the term 'artist' is used so loosely and freely to anyone who can hold a paint brush or draw a circle.

If I applied the same logic to medicine: is a mother a doctor just because she goes out an buys flu capsules for her son? Or is she a nurse just because she administers the capsules to her son? Of course not! She has no qualification to make any sort of claim to that title.

So what's the difference between an artist and someone who paints a picture?

2006-10-14 22:30:36 · 9 answers · asked by Twinkles 2 in Arts & Humanities Other - Arts & Humanities

9 answers

You are distinguishing between an artist who maybe likes to paint,who is artistic, and a person who does art as a living or at least a side job. That would be someone who has accomplished maybe some sales or shows or something, which,in the artworld, builds your rep and level- unless you teach or your job (company) requires it, I think that is more important. I have been working full time as a decorative (mural) artist for 30 years. I've shown in galleries and sell internationally- yet, in my mind,I'm still a babe in the woods-but to some people I'm quite good and by the standards given,I'm an artist-who would have thought! :0)

2006-10-14 22:47:25 · answer #1 · answered by ARTmom 7 · 2 0

Art is hard to define. There are no qualifications for being an artist. There are many artists that become great artists after they die. It is the art that is created that makes the artist an artist in my opinion. An artist is defined by their art. Not the other way around.
Doctors and nurses are often required to do menial things that do not comprise the whole entity of their profession.
Perhaps there is arrogance in defining someone else's profession or what they are. I used to think Picasso was not a great artist until I learned more about him and that he had the ability to create anything he desired to produce and not just eclectic trendy things but the trendy stuff was my first introduction to his art and I thought it a joke compared to a Mona Lisa.
The difference between an artist and someone painting a picture is like an abortionist that performs an abortion in a clinic or one that performs one with a coat hanger. They perform the same function but are defined by the level of their expertise and reputation and in the artists case the artist is defined by the reaction to his/her art by others. Are artists, doctors, and nurses defined by money? by others reactions? by the art produced? I believe artists are very complex and when you meet one and see the art and have art in your heart you will know that the beauty of art is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

2006-10-14 22:54:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You can't compare artists with doctors and nurses because artists do not have to be board certified.
An artist devotes his life to his art and is willing to starve for the sake of his art. I doubt that someone who picks up a brush and paints by numbers would do the same.
I was an art student but soon realized I was not willing to starve for my art so I chose a different career path. I still draw on occasion and that does not make me an artist.

2006-10-14 22:45:32 · answer #3 · answered by mpicky2 4 · 1 0

An artist makes art and commits to making it everyday. When art making is a primary activity, the maker is an artist, whether or not the output is good or bad. Someone who just "paints a picture" is practicing a pasttime or hobby, despite how good or bad the output. Most artists have been trained, but some self-taught artists are very good, so academics is a secondary measure.

2006-10-14 22:45:26 · answer #4 · answered by Victor 4 · 2 1

i believe so. however, anyone can be an artist. for example, a singer is called a 'lyrical artist', and someone who works at subway is called a 'sandwich artist.' i agree the term is used loosely because, as i said before, anyone can be an artist. two more examples then i'll go. a poet is called an 'artist of words' and a comedian is often called a 'sketch artist.'

2006-10-14 23:51:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think the difference is commitment the passing artist just doodles or paint by numbers where I think the true artist feels the need for that outlet of self expression.How's that?

2006-10-14 22:35:03 · answer #6 · answered by veryslickmick 2 · 1 0

The 'labels' we attach to certain proffessions are only man-made. You can be whoever you feel yourself to be. I believe that I was fooled by paper qualifications for a long time and only impressed by honesty and integrity now - but thats only my opinion, I am not really qualified to answer this question!

2006-10-14 22:44:58 · answer #7 · answered by youdancin 2 · 1 0

Theirs George Grie. His paintings have a scary atmosphere.

2016-05-22 03:29:51 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I would say yes because some of the greatest painters had no paper qualifications and after all "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

2006-10-14 22:59:04 · answer #9 · answered by lynda be be 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers