Art and the Artist
I recently was browsing a book in a local Barnes and Noble and read the statement “There is no such thing as art. There are only artists.”
This seemed fairly prolific to me standing there in the isle looking at all of the art books. My philosophical mind kicked into gear as it always does when looking at art books. (By the way, is it me or does one feel they have to have a Phd. to ‘get’ books about art?) Here is the question I would pose based off of that statement above:
Does the art make the artist or does the artist make the art?
Initially, it seems simple to say that the artist indeed makes the art as he strives with elements of form and rhythm in the work. But it remains, that if the art had not been created, would the artist cease to be an “artist” or is it more the artistic mind that defines one as being “an artist”?
In essence, what defines both art or artist as being such?
2 Comments
Art historians have the problem of whether to divide their study by movement, artist, or even subject.
The subject set is the worst. Modern art is sublect-less. What do you do then?
By movement isn’t bad. Problems occur when artist’s eschew movement identity, or overlap occurs. They want to be original!
I like the by artist choice. How do you divorce the art from the artist?
This makes sense, then, of the quote!
But then, some wag comes along and claims that the artist’s work somehow transcends the meaning he tried to impart, or whatever. Now, we are back to the Escher illusion and the questions begin again…
LOL, I’m not sure Escher was going for that….