The Art of Art (pt. 1): The Artist

I don't know if it's a surprise to anyone, but I wasn't always an artist. I wasn't born with a pencil in one hand and a paint brush in the other. I often hear other artists say they've been drawing consistently since childhood...not me. In fact, I didn't even really take drawing seriously until high school. Once I did though, things haven't stopped changing.


Before I continue, I want to assure anyone reading that this is not going to be about how I became an artist. In my opinion, applying the label of "artist" to someone simply means that creating "art" has been declared as a source of their livelihood or fame. A person is generally not labeled an "artist" simply because they make something, there are other requirements that have to be met by them and what they created in order to acquire this label. In other words, I didn't become an artist, I acquired the label by meeting certain prerequisites. I'll address that later.

Recently, I took a short look back at the time between the day I became an "artist" and today. There were a few realizations I came to regarding the effects of this label on myself and others artists I met. Being an "artist" has some pros and cons. One of the first things I realized is that artists are "allowed" to be extravagant. Artists are still criticized for things they do, but in a way which isn't as negative as someone who isn't an artist. For example,  I used to own a pair of purple curdoroy pants, and the first time I wore them a friend said that if they saw someone else wearing them he'd be basically question their sanity, but in his words "...you're an artist so whatever."

According to that statement and the context in which it was made, it would seem that I can wear extravagant clothing because I'm an artist. So does that mean I and other artists are exempt from ridicule? In a way, yes. People will still find things artists' do to be strange, but when they find out the person is an artist it becomes more acceptable, or at least predictable. In a way, you're almost expected to be extravagant if you're an artist. I believe this difference in reaction is due to a strange belief that an artist's aesthetic preferences are almost considered superior or unattainable by the "average" person, and are thus unquestionable. This might not be true in all cases of course, but in many cases, being an artist has been given as an explanation for extravagance.

This doesn't only apply to people talking about an artist, sometimes the artist themselves explain their extravagance by saying they're an artist. I've even met some artists who act extravagantly because they are artists, almost as if it was part of being an artist. This treatment of artists, and effect of the "artist" label, seems wrong though. First, it's an assumption, which generally seems like a bad thing. You shouldn't simply create a correlation between two things which may have no relation to one another. More importantly, this creates exclusivity. Artists shouldn't be "allowed" to be extravagant, everyone should be "allowed." Artists shouldn't be exempt from opinions and criticism, they're just people. A person exempt from criticism may never develop or change even if their lifestyle and lifestyle choices may be having negative effects.

This isn't confined to physical expressions such as fashion either, it stretches into personal philosophy. We all know (at least I believe we do) that there are societal standards and norms a large percentage of our population lives by. I have some opinions that don't coincide with these standards, and have previously expressed them. In many cases, the reaction I receive after expressing these opinions, is similar to the reaction I received for wearing purple cords. It would appear that being an artist grants me not only the ability to be physically extravagant, but also the ability to ignore social norms. I can only assume this is because of two reasons: the first is that many artists have combined unique philosophies with their artwork which has linked the two, the second leads back to the ideas about artists' aesthetics. The idea would be that an artist perceives the world differently and due to that, they are supposed to have a different perception of the world due. This may be true for many, but not for all, and assuming it does apply to all is wrong and dismissive. I, personally, didn't discover philosophy through art, one did not spring from the other. My philosophical theories should not be dismissed as the philosophy of an artist, which in turn means it doesn't need to be or can't be analyzed and thought about, they should be treated the same way the theories of any other person would be treated.

To conclude and summarize what is probably a lengthier than usual post, I propose that before pawning off the qualities of SOME artists on ALL artists we remember that some people we consider artists aren't extravagant or strange. Instead of placing artists in a bubble and perceiving their qualities as artistic qualities which don't require analysis or criticism, we should treat them similarly to anyone else. The artistic world shouldn't be exclusive to artists, or specialized art critics and theorists who supposedly have a special right to critique and artist and their art because they "understand" art, it should be open to everyone.

-Dennis