Hi, Monday, September 22, 2003, 10:24:34 PM, you wrote:
> Whether one is an artist or not is, I think, simply a matter of intent. > If ones intent is to produce art than one is an artist. Now I am willing > to admit that becoming a good artist, much less a great one, can take > years or even decades of hard work, but whether one is an artist is > simply a matter of wanting to produce art. > In photography we have two types of photographers (they may of course > overlap) the art photographer for whom the picture is the message, and > the documentary photographer for who the subject is the message. As you > can see the difference between the two (at least beyond a certain skill > level) is simply the intent of the photographer. > Therefore I say, if your intent is art then you are an artist. It is as > simple as that. Is it enough to intend to produce art? Surely an artist must actually produce some art. Having produced something, is it enough for the producer to declare 'this is art!', or does he not have to do even that? Having declared himself an artist, is everything he produces art, whether or not he declares it to be? Does the art status of a self-declared artist's work depend at all on other people recognising the product as art? Once some product is recognised as an artwork, by whoever and by whatever means, how can we tell if it's good art or bad art? Or is all art good by definition? Are there such things as good artists and bad artists? How can we tell which is which? Can an artist be so bad that he is not an artist? Can a bad artist produce good art? What if someone decides he's not an artist after all? Do all his works cease to be art? How can we decide if anonymous works are art, when we don't know if the producer had declared his artistic status? -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
