Stumbled on the documentary "David Lynch: The Art Life" before YouTube took it down.
That and "Crumb" are a couple of films that convinced me that some people just are artists. It's not ego, or some desire to be eccentric ... they can't help it. They live "the art life", damn the consequences.
You could handily list any number of other people (John Waters just came to mind).
Similar to the author of the blog post, I have sort of demurred when asked if I was an artist. Partly it sounds arrogant to say, "Why, yes I am."
Partly it seemed to be a thing in the eye of the beholder. "I don't know, do you think I am an artist?" Plenty of people don't think Andy Warhol was an artist, Jackson Pollock....
Sometimes I have treated "artist" as a profession. Do I get paid for my art? Why no, I do not. I get paid for programming. Although when I write a game I am both programmer and "game artist". (Or is perhaps designing an elegant API for a framework a kind of art form? Okay, maybe not.)
If an artist can be a hobbyist the way many of us are amateur musicians, woodworkers, cooks, mechanics, (construction contractors), in our spare time then, yes, many of us are artists.
I think the older I get though (and maybe the more films I see about artists) I am slowly coming to accept that, sure, I'm an artist too. Just maybe not a very good one.
If you enjoyed, or at least "got" something out of the Lynch, you might also the film documentary 'Jodorowsky's Dune'. Is a man with a fantastic vision he is unable to instantiate, an artist? Asking for a friend.
An artist, per Steven Pressfield, the author of "The War of Art", is someone who makes art. A painter paints, a writer writes, a musician makes music. So, if a person with a fantastic vision is putting out actual effort towards instantiating that vision, that person is an artist. On the other hand, if the fantastic vision remains purely a dream or a wish, they are not.
By the way, "The War of Art", and its sequel, "Turning Pro" are fantastic books on this topic. These books would be my number one recommendation to anyohe who aspires to be an artist.
Pressfield, no stranger to this tension would describe the sort of tension around identity as a form of Resistance. I just want to mention that he wrote another very motivating sequel to “The War of Art” last year entitled “Put Your Ass Where Your Heart Wants to Be”. It takes a more practical approach to becoming and _being_ an artist.
> Is a man with a fantastic vision he is unable to instantiate, an artist?
I haven't seen the film but this is the defining part of the "artist" title for me. It's not that he wasn't able to instantiate his vision, but he made an attempt and that attempt had an impact on others. That is the art, and it's all performance. The instantiation doesn't matter so much as a message with receivers. If the receivers of whatever happened with his Dune weren't there, then I guess I would still call it something like a "lost" art. Still art, but unrecognized as such. And I'm not sure that would have mattered to the artist anyway.
> If an artist can be a hobbyist the way many of us are amateur musicians…
There are so many definitional and semantic struggles around who gets to call themselves “artist” or “hobbyist”. Among the most fraught involves money, as if you don’t get to call yourself an artist unless you derive your primary income from what would otherwise be called art. I’m more interested in your commitment to create, to inspire, and to present something deeply individual in what you create.
I felt it more a transgression to tell people I was a programmer (and I still feel uncomfortable with the label “engineer” despite having the title long enough to be uncomfortable saying how long). Then again art is what led me to code, I learned how to program first and foremost because the “telling people” was either too limited (no established platforms to publish music) or too tedious (tons of redundant work adding metadata to self hosted published material, then adding it to HTML as well, then updating everything to reflect any new navigation).
More than all of that though, I’ve long felt that programming computers is art. You don’t have to identify with that, but it’s a fundamentally creative pursuit. It’s full of choices and expression and compromise and imperfection. At least from my perspective, anyone who has made something that makes machines do things is qualified to claim the title “artist” if they would like to.
Yeah I definitely come at this from a working class background. And I don’t even have any pretense of CS, I learned every bit of programming I know from either personal interest or some combination of that and inspiration/pressure among peers.
Same, from a working class background, can't really call myself "working class" anymore, but the upbringing remains. I refer to myself as a "programmer", and when speaking to people who revere what we do I explain that the majority of programmers are effectively "digital plumbers".
I have a CS degree (first class, from a very respected uni) and still wouldn't class myself as a "computer scientist", I reserve that term for those who are doing research in the field
> the majority of programmers are effectively "digital plumbers".
I don't think this is entirely true or accurate. Unless plumbing profession also has the phenomena of plumbers removing hair balls, and other junk, from pipes put in there by other plumbers .. that said, in Brazil, we did get a glimpse of working on a typical large codebase.
If it's any consolation I am and describe myself as a computer scientist because it's what my 1982 degree was in but I am a notoriously bad programmer and for historical reasons of timing (the year after I graduated my degree qualified for B.Eng status) I am not and cannot call myself an engineer software or otherwise.
I've met plenty of "webshits" that have a degree in computer science and have been working in it for over a decade along with almost all other layers of software dev short of, say, the linux kernel. At what point are programmers allowed to just be programmers regardless of specialization, lack of it, or education?
I like to say I'm a "Developer", or "Software Developer", and then I can describe further what I do as "creating things" for people to use.
I agree 100% with you that programming is art and a vehicle for so much creativity and liberty (think net.art, code poetry, the hundred different ways to make the same function), but even then I feel that programming is just a part of the creation process. So I tend to prefer Developer
In the early 2000s, I chose to leave behind my successful career as an artist and transitioned into the field of graphic design. Eventually, I ventured into UX design and founded my own company that specializes in software development and design.
Initially, my success as an artist had made it easier for people to accept me into the community. However, when I decided to stop commercially painting, people labeled me as a crazy man who had no sense of direction. Only when money returned to my pocket did they embrace me once again as a success.
If your concern as an artist is solely based on gaining people's approval, then you are approaching it wrong. Creativity is an inherent quality that yearns to be liberated from within every individual.
Society needs the unconventional and daring ideas of artists, which they are not capable of producing due to the perceived risk involved in this lifestyle.
As an artist, your guiding principle should be a self-honesty that is driven by a clear egoistic purpose (in a good way). The most crucial aspect of being an artist is the production of artwork. If you let your art speak to the world, then the rest is merely a matter of marketing.
I relate to this. I still tell people I'm an artist, at first brush - as opposed to a UI designer or a coder. And it's okay, and true, because I still paint all night sometimes, still write music and record, even if it isn't for work. I don't think you have to identify yourself as your job...
I halted my artistic career due to the concept of identity. It dawned on me that I was tailoring my artwork to suit the preferences and expectations of others, which led to a profound realization. I made a conscious decision to disentangle my creative output from commercial validation and societal pressures.
I think one way or the other, avoiding narcissism is the ideal thing. I do commercial art a lot. I take pride in my work. I don't consider it "art", just creative communication. And at the same time I'm not sure I consider my fine art to be anything other than creative dreaming / practice. Contrary to what you're saying, I actually think it's good to take pride and get a little emotional lift in both cases when people praise your work... but I think a sense of self is knowing not to define your own worth by what other people think of your output, and by the same token if you do define your worth that way, it makes it impossible to be humble about your own shortcomings. But it's okay to write or paint for an audience. Making art in a void is a lonely place to be.
Loneliness may have two sides, but it's a powerful tool for self-discovery.
My personal instincts at the time told me to shut down and embrace it, and I don't regret it because we're all the same, yet unique in our own way.
That's me. I identify as someone with an artist personality who works in software (right now). Just my mind is wired differently to all those engineers. Always has been. I'm like: more intuitive, more feeling, more flexible...less in need of concrete distinctions, less prone to be literal, less inclined to believe that I have all the answers and believe anything beyond what I know cannot exist. And many more...it's tough hanging out with all you engineers sometimes. I don't like stereotypes, but this one I have of the typical eng is born of much experience. I don't want it to be this way! Maybe it's not as tough for me as it is for you to hang out with artist types like me...
Being blunt, it sounds to me like you're using wildly inaccurate personality stereotypes to generalise horribly about both software engineers and artists. A software dev who is inclined to believe they have all the answers is a bad software dev. And the idea that artists all need to be intuitive, and flexible is, based on my experience of many artists, laughable.
Try finding a broader range of developers and artists to spend time around. Your world view may expand.
Why be mean for? I open myself up and share something vulnerably here, and how do you respond? You try to invalidate it. That's not very nice.
I have my experience of it. That yours differs, why do you need to invalidate mine? Why can't we both exist? No I think it is maybe your world view that needs to expand, son, and by not being inclusive of mine, but instead trying to shoot it down you are displaying the very same inflexibility that I identified which you simultaneously pretend does not exist! Ha!! :) ;p xx ;p
Think about that next time before you're "blunt". A blunt instrument has limited use....even for artists! ;p :)
Your attempt to dichotomize the world is insulting to people who have been, and are, both--sometimes at the same time. That's why you got the reaction you did, and your doubling down is, to someone on the receiving end, no less unkind than the post you characterize as "mean".
Insulting how? Well then if you get insulted by that you're not "both". You're probably not even one.
That's why I got the reaction? No, I got the reaction because that guy's insecure he's not an artist, and he's choosing to be a little meanie.
Oh I see, so you're a victim now? Of your own misinterpretation? Wilful wanting to see a fault so you can claim to be right? Pathological need to be "victimized" to justify attacking someone?
Look the bottom line is, you wouldn't be unhappy if you didn't think it was true. So don't blame me if it's true for you. If you don't like it, just fix yourself.
No but it can be. It all depends. That why you need to consider feelings. The problem is not with feelings, it's with people's behavior when they act inconsiderately. Don't you got that?
Jungian personality stereotypes never paint the whole picture, but are definitely useful as long as you don't see it as black and white.
Intuitive feelers ("artist types") often clash with observant thinkers ("engineer types") according to the theory and I've experienced this a lot, too.
Thanks Jon. I agree, "That's intellectual inadequacy." is a good term to describe. I get you haven't seen it here, but I have.
I think one of the things I base this one is, you see posts on here about aliens, UFOs, remote viewing, right? All of this paranormal psychology stuff. And you see all these replies like: X is impossible (with X being: aliens exist; aliens would visit us; aliens could visit us; aliens are visiting us; remote viewing is real). And people often invariably say: "It's not possible to do X using physics". And I'm like: but physics isn't settled, we don't know everything, it's so arrogant! But they don't budge, they don't care. So it very much is a real thing.
You don't even have to get such common topics--I mean all kinds of non-mainstream topics, which I would love engineers to engage with--they don't. Pandemic: conformity of thinking; all kinds of stuff and they just stick to the mainstream narrative. Anyway, I've definitely seen that. I get if you haven't, but it's out there, man. Hah :)
> Because people don’t get to do that; to be artists. It’s a thing for children, or the pathologically detached and eccentric. Regular people, by definition, aren’t artists — or so we tell ourselves
Rather, I think, most adults don't get to be successful artists - and in turn, most artists don't do it seeking success, they do it because it feels good to create. Creating art for its own sake, or for your own sake, is notoriously difficult to monetize though - creating art for an audience requires that you consider the desires of your patron(s), and that's a different skill than pure creative expression.
Practically, the word "art" tend to create misunderstanding because literally everyone have a different idea of what the word represents. If someone tells me they're an artist that means absolutely nothing to me. "writer" is much better in terms of communication because it tells me what you actually do. I stopped using the word years ago and it only brought me happiness in life, saved me from a lot of unproductive language games of matching one label to another.
Just a thought, reading your comment. A 'writer' is someone who 'writes' so there is no issue with identifying as such; you can write silly or profound things.
However in French there is a specific word for a book writer, 'écrivain', whereas there is no word corresponding to 'writer', 'écriveur' is a derisive term to explicitly convey the idea that one is a writer that is not an artist. So that trick wouldn't be possible in French.
So my theory is that if there is a dedicated word for the highest status activity, that word tends to naturally accumulate all semantic layers that artistic activities do.
But even in English, visual arts tend to just be 'art'. You can be a 'painter', but if you don't paint then there isn't really any word, unless you identify as a drawer.
Interestingly, Neil Stephenson’s — in the top comment on thread that was also on the front page earlier - gave this advice for improving ones writing: “Stop thinking of it as art, or as something you're born with, and start thinking of it as an acquired skill like cabinet making”
Yeah I think caring about the word too much can sometimes stand in the ways of actually mastering one's craft and create. I come from an "art school" and seen quite some people like this, especially nowadays where the identity movement is going strong, which is also a lot about words and labels.
I totally agree with this. I'm an artist and I think of myself as part creator and part craftsman. There are so many small skills that go into my work that are much more craft than creative.
True but at least "writer" is easier to further conversation. This is a real conversation I once had: "What do you do?" "I'm an artist" "So what do you do?" "..I do art"
That person didn’t want to indulge you in trying to simplify them and put them in a box they don’t agree with. There is nothing wrong with that.
If they wanted to “further the conversation” they could have shown you examples of what they do, or told about their art more. If they choose not to that is on them. Perhaps they were tired, perhaps they found your question boring, perhaps they had some insecurities around their art or you, perhaps you rubbed them the wrong way.
It's funny because the writer in the article identifies himself as a writer, not an artist. He then later equates identifying as a writer to identifying as an artist, which is kind of like that you're saying.
Interesting to hear other peoples opinions... I actually find it easier to say I'm working on an "art-project" these days with zero shame.
One of the advantages for me: most people assume that "art projects" generally don't start with the expectation that one is going to profit insanely (contrasted with the perception when one says "I'm doing a startup"). The measure of success is simply getting the work out there into the public, that is all an artist can do. The rest is up to the consumer.
This is the perspective that works for me and keeps me happy and humble. For me, when I gave up trying to control other peoples perceptions of myself, my life became much easier.
(edit: I'm doing something in the NFT space, so it's also technically true as well as metaphorically) YMMV.
It's hard. Doubly so if you really tick some of the boxes of people's preconceptions, like not being able to sustain yourself doing the thing you identify yourself with. In my case, I'm a musician, but I have a day job plus I do sound engineering which in terms of the income is in between.
What do you tell other people in this situation? It depends on the person, but telling others you're a musician either means you trust them enough not to roll their eyes (lots of people don't, merely being polite), or you just don't care, in which case it can be a kind of a challenge (k, let's see how you react).
Also, personally I suspect this can be a huge barrier to ever getting a job in tech.
Do any artists who do it as a paid profession struggle with this? The ones I know are pretty straight forward about it.
The writers and photographers and actors I know who identify as such are either doing it as their profession, or attempting to do so, for money.
I would have thought you only really get into trouble here when you’re using it to try and describe a facet of your identity, and people assume you’re describing your work.
That and "Crumb" are a couple of films that convinced me that some people just are artists. It's not ego, or some desire to be eccentric ... they can't help it. They live "the art life", damn the consequences.
You could handily list any number of other people (John Waters just came to mind).
Similar to the author of the blog post, I have sort of demurred when asked if I was an artist. Partly it sounds arrogant to say, "Why, yes I am."
Partly it seemed to be a thing in the eye of the beholder. "I don't know, do you think I am an artist?" Plenty of people don't think Andy Warhol was an artist, Jackson Pollock....
Sometimes I have treated "artist" as a profession. Do I get paid for my art? Why no, I do not. I get paid for programming. Although when I write a game I am both programmer and "game artist". (Or is perhaps designing an elegant API for a framework a kind of art form? Okay, maybe not.)
If an artist can be a hobbyist the way many of us are amateur musicians, woodworkers, cooks, mechanics, (construction contractors), in our spare time then, yes, many of us are artists.
I think the older I get though (and maybe the more films I see about artists) I am slowly coming to accept that, sure, I'm an artist too. Just maybe not a very good one.