Post by Omen on Mar 2, 2011 16:11:37 GMT -5
This is a debate I got involved in a few years back that actually crawled under my skinned and nipped at me for a while! Whoops... I almost forgot to include my classic 'Disclaimer'.
(Disclaimer: if YOU, who had this conversation with me, happen to read this post, please don't get offended. I'm leaving your name out of it, but I do think that it is fair to ask the art community from all over in order to get a balanced opinion)
I will use the name of 'SETH' to define you.
Seth and I got into it about art. His premise was that Colorists, Inkers, and those who work with any picture formed before them are NOT artists. They are merely supporters of a concept. This led us into a ton of screeching and howling which resulted in an agreement for the 'loose' definition of art:
Art is the creative expression of an idea.
From that he defended his point by breaking artist up into 2 groups:
1. Creators (he referred to them as 'True Artists')
2. Supporters (he referred to them as 'Standard Artists')
My issue is this... I'm an ARTIST!!! I got offended when it came to the thought of splitting us into greater and lesser groups! I embrace creative expression at every level and I find that each of those levels feel as important to the 'Standard Artist' as it does to the creator of the concept as a whole.
Even though I feel like this, logic dictates that a great argument should be something that you walk away with new knowledge or inspiring thought.
Seth, I thank you for the challenge in thought because it stayed in the back of my mind for years!!
This is something I DEFINITELY want to hear everyone's opinion on, if you have one.
Is the guy that spends hours choosing, designing, and building the best frame for a piece of artwork by Picasso, Da'Vinci... uh, David Finch or Alex Ross... LESS of an artist than the one who created the picture??
What about the colorist?
Can art and/or artist be grouped into categories such as this??
-Omen
(Disclaimer: if YOU, who had this conversation with me, happen to read this post, please don't get offended. I'm leaving your name out of it, but I do think that it is fair to ask the art community from all over in order to get a balanced opinion)
I will use the name of 'SETH' to define you.
Seth and I got into it about art. His premise was that Colorists, Inkers, and those who work with any picture formed before them are NOT artists. They are merely supporters of a concept. This led us into a ton of screeching and howling which resulted in an agreement for the 'loose' definition of art:
Art is the creative expression of an idea.
From that he defended his point by breaking artist up into 2 groups:
1. Creators (he referred to them as 'True Artists')
2. Supporters (he referred to them as 'Standard Artists')
My issue is this... I'm an ARTIST!!! I got offended when it came to the thought of splitting us into greater and lesser groups! I embrace creative expression at every level and I find that each of those levels feel as important to the 'Standard Artist' as it does to the creator of the concept as a whole.
Even though I feel like this, logic dictates that a great argument should be something that you walk away with new knowledge or inspiring thought.
Seth, I thank you for the challenge in thought because it stayed in the back of my mind for years!!
This is something I DEFINITELY want to hear everyone's opinion on, if you have one.
Is the guy that spends hours choosing, designing, and building the best frame for a piece of artwork by Picasso, Da'Vinci... uh, David Finch or Alex Ross... LESS of an artist than the one who created the picture??
What about the colorist?
Can art and/or artist be grouped into categories such as this??
-Omen
