I’m (not) an artist
June, 2024
Within the scope of the association unboxing cycles, I have been looking for and applying for different grants and seeking support to make (among other things) the artistic exhibition at the beginning of 2025 a reality.
However, I face a challenge - I haven't studied art, so I'm not an artist - not precisely with these words, but that's the statement I received in one of the rejection letters. In Switzerland (I'm unaware of how it works in other countries), if you didn't study it, you are not considered part of the group of artists. You will only be considered in such applications if you own a diploma.
What if you know the theory but can't practice it or put it into expression? Are you still considered an artist?
If you look at the Oxford Dictionary, it defines the word "artists" as follows:
a person who creates paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby.
a person who practises or performs any creative arts, such as a sculptor, filmmaker, actor, or dancer.
a person skilled at a particular task or occupation.
A few weeks ago, during an interesting exchange with Lora, we discussed the philosophy of that question in depth.
A piece of art is a communication method—one where the artist uses that medium to express herself/himself while someone else appreciates it.
Is it still considered an art if there's no appreciation or receiving party? According to Oxford, in theory, it would, as it does not address the receiving end of the spectrum but rather the creation.
I asked chat GTP, "What is art? A short summary". The following was the response I got:
"Art is a diverse range of human activities and creations that express imaginative, conceptual, and technical skills. It encompasses visual arts (like painting, sculpture), performing arts (such as music, dance), and literary arts (including poetry, fiction). Art serves to convey emotions, explore ideas, and reflect cultural values."
"Does art have to have a receiver to be considered art?" I asked.
It answered: Art does not necessarily require a receiver to be considered art. While interaction with an audience can enhance the experience and interpretation of art, the creative act itself—the expression and creation by the artist—can be sufficient for something to be considered art. Art can exist independently of external validation or recognition.
I guess it is still a type of communication with oneself. I became intrigued by the robotic conversation and asked one more question: "Who can be considered an artist?"
Chat GTP: "Anyone who engages in the act of creating art can be considered an artist. This includes individuals who express their creativity through various mediums such as painting, sculpture, music, dance, writing, or other forms of artistic expression. Professional training or recognition is not a requirement; passion, creativity, and the act of creation itself are what defines an artist."
Thus, whether you have studied it or not, what defines an artist is their essential ability to express oneself through whichever medium one chooses. Knowing a few artists myself, I see art as a necessity, not a luxury. A way to express and share with the world one's view, make a statement without necessarily using words, tell stories, communicate, educate, and connect people - sometimes a universal language is achieved by the feelings it provokes. An instrument for change and a raw expression of the artist's soul.
As a photographer, I have considered myself an artist since I accepted that it was ok to call myself a photographer even without having studied. However, many (especially nowadays) see Photography as an undervalued technique - "everyone can be a photographer"; "with AI, the job of a photographer won't be necessary anymore". You could claim the same about any painting, music, video making.. technology will never be able to replace one's view of the world, one's experiences and ways of expressing. It might support it, broaden access, or create new mediums, but not replace it.
GTP's opinion on Photography and art: "Yes, Photography is considered an art. It involves creativity, technical skill, and an artistic vision to capture and convey emotions, ideas, and perspectives through images. Like other art forms, Photography can be used to express the artist's viewpoint, tell stories, and evoke emotional responses from viewers." The experience needed to convey these, actually to live the experiences lived, will remain unreplaceable.
Recently, I talked to a gallerist who gave me another perspective on the art world.
Many see Galleries as a place not to enter, a parallel world with a glass door to the mass population. A place only a few can enter, and not everyone will be welcome. Shouldn't art be accessible to all to create even more change? This leads me to another point - an art piece is often considered good only once someone with influence considers it so. When did we lose our senses to distinguish something we like from something we don't? Many only appreciate an art piece after it has been reviewed by many and considered worthwhile - otherwise, it undergoes as irrelevant.
Personally, when I see, hear, or feel someone's art, I first try to understand what it does to me. Some artworks attract me more than others, and some speak more loudly to my inner being than others, but I let my feelings guide me through the appreciation. More often than not, I first feel, to only then read if there is more information about the piece or the artist to understand the context of the creation.
How do you appreciate art when you encounter it?
Here is a tribute to all artists (and honestly, I believe we all are, each in their own way) and a little #foodforthought 😉