Non-religious pet peeves

[Buddy]

Another post reminded me.

You are not an artist unless you make art for a living, just as a lawyer is only a lawyer if it is his profession, they may have the skills necessary to do so but unless they are active in the field they are not such. You can be artistic, you can be a talented drawer, painter, writer, musician, and/or photographer (even though none of these are needed to be an artist all that is required is an strong imagination and the ability to delegate concisely) but unless you are producing art for a living then you are not an artist. *End rant*

I feel like I would have do disagree. I think anyone can be an artist if they want to. I don't think that it has to be their profession. It could just be a hobby.

[Crow]

I feel like I would have do disagree. I think anyone can be an artist if they want to. I don't think that it has to be their profession. It could just be a hobby.

Yeah anyone can be an artist (whether they are good or not is another question and entirely subjective) but they are not an artist if it is their hobby. Just as a person who likes to write stories in their spare time is not an author. Maybe some would add an extra distinction between the two as "artist" - "professional artist" but I have never heard the term used and wouldn't use it. But I wouldn't call somebody an artist who draws pretty pictures there is a lot more to it than that I think this story is a good example of the difference between an artist and a person that can draw.

The story goes that Picasso was sitting in a Paris café when an admirer approached and asked if he would do a quick sketch on a paper napkin. Picasso politely agreed, swiftly executed the work, and handed back the napkin — but not before asking for a rather significant amount of money. The admirer was shocked: 'How can you ask for so much? It took you a minute to draw this!' 'No', Picasso replied, 'It took me 40 years'

[DeterminedJuliet]

Another post reminded me.

You are not an artist unless you make art for a living, just as a lawyer is only a lawyer if it is his profession, they may have the skills necessary to do so but unless they are active in the field they are not such. You can be artistic, you can be a talented drawer, painter, writer, musician, and/or photographer (even though none of these are needed to be an artist all that is required is an strong imagination and the ability to delegate concisely) but unless you are producing art for a living then you are not an artist. *End rant*

Erm, I don't think I agree, either. I know some truly talented dancers who have been dancing for years, are certified in their area of dance, teach, travel to dance festivals and attend dance workshops, but they still have "day jobs." In fact, I know two women who own a dance studio and they both still have day-jobs. The studio is successful, but they keep the prices reasonable because they're so involved in the community. Plus, all of the dance costuming/travel costs a fortune, so they work day jobs to help support their own dance growth. I'd call them both successful artists. Choice of income =/= someone's "living", I don't think.

Now, I'll give you that there are some obnoxious people out there. I know a guy who published one novel and before the thing even hit the shelves he had changed his Facebook employment information to "professional novelist." It's been two years now and he hasn't written a thing since (that I'm aware of) and I'm pretty sure he's on unemployment. But whatever. He felt like he needed that and that it reflected who he is. In reality, the labels only go so far. Part of being what I would consider a successful artist is A) consistently producing work and B) having the respect, or at least notice, of your peers. If the "artist's" art doesn't mean much to them or to anyone else, it'll be hard to hide over time. So I let things like that be. Who knows, maybe the guy I know will get out of his slump and will be the next J.K Rowling. I don't waste a lot of energy worrying about it, just some slight irritation here and there.

[Crow]

[DJ]

I would agree with calling them artists (well depending that they are creative in dance an not the tool of the artist, if that makes sense), even though they may have a day job that isn't dance doesn't deter from the fact that they are artists, unless people are very lucky the vast majority of artists need another job at some point or another to pay the bills. But regardless dance is a huge part of there life from the description you gave far more than just a hobby and commit a large part of there life towards it, its not something they do every now and again it is a part of them.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't think dollars have much to do with art at all, what of all those who have died before value was found in their work?  I'd say art is a person expressing their experience of or feelings for the world in some way, very rare anyone would want to pay for it.  Just about every kid loves to draw, paint, sing and bang a drum but they drift away from it, they're not artists, let others do who do it better.  Don't look within, others will show you how it's done, have you seen the latest iPhone?

I know some purists say dollars don't help art.  If work is motivated by dollars and not by the desire to express what is felt I'd agree, so much of it is plastic but it sells so well.

[Hector Valdez]

Aren't semantics FUN???

[xSilverPhinx]

I never thought I would get this kind of writer's block.

It annoys me when I'm supposed to explain why an animal would live in a certain habitat except...that animal isn't exactly in that microhabitat.

But anyways, I'm just ranting. I'm going to have to mention that more sampling is needed. Can I do that? ???

[philosoraptor]

Another post reminded me.

You are not an artist unless you make art for a living, just as a lawyer is only a lawyer if it is his profession, they may have the skills necessary to do so but unless they are active in the field they are not such. You can be artistic, you can be a talented drawer, painter, writer, musician, and/or photographer (even though none of these are needed to be an artist all that is required is an strong imagination and the ability to delegate concisely) but unless you are producing art for a living then you are not an artist. *End rant*

So what of people like da Vinci and Poe, who died indigent and penniless?  I guess they weren't artists?  

I think the art you create without the expectation of receiving payment for it is a lot more meaningful.  Artists are the people who create because they are compelled to do so by passion, not by the promise of a paycheck.

ETA: What Pudding said, basically. 

[Crow]

So what of people like da Vinci and Poe, who died indigent and penniless?  I guess they weren't artists?  

I think the art you create without the expectation of receiving payment for it is a lot more meaningful.  Artists are the people who create because they are compelled to do so by passion, not by the promise of a paycheck.

ETA: What Pudding said, basically. 

Disregarding the example of Da Vinci which is completely wrong, Da Vinci was not only the most popular artists of his time, his client list reads like the who's who of nobility of the 15th & 16th century and kept the company of Kings, of whom he died in the company of. Poe most likely was penniless as he was infamously a heavy alcoholic but that still doesn't deter from the fact that his career after the military was in publishing, won many awards and was highly praised by critics for his own releases. A person who is truly an artist will make money from there passion and talent, artists need to consume food and pay bills too so why would they do anything else, I didn't state anywhere that they had to be rich just that it was there profession. Being an artist is more than a job its a way of life and a way of thinking which is why there are so many poor artists who still pursue being artists even though they are making little or no money but it is still there profession.

[Ihateyoumike]

People who walk through a store or other public place with their crap music blaring from their crap cellphone speaker. Not ringtones (though I hate those too) but just straight up listening to their personal soundtrack in everyone else's earspace. Fuck you people... buy headphones!

[Amicale]

People who walk through a store or other public place with their crap music blaring from their crap cellphone speaker. Not ringtones (though I hate those too) but just straight up listening to their personal soundtrack in everyone else's earspace. Fuck you people... buy headphones!

If it's a song I know the lyrics to, or at least know the tune to, I occasionally walk near them and either sing or hum along. They give me a strange look, then get the idea, and turn off their damned phones/devices. Or pull out their earbuds and start using them. Generally, I do NOT have a good singing voice, so if I embarass them, so much the better. My kiddo even looks for people for me... "Oooh mommy, there's a guy with music, do you know THAT song??" 

[xSilverPhinx]

People who walk through a store or other public place with their crap music blaring from their crap cellphone speaker. Not ringtones (though I hate those too) but just straight up listening to their personal soundtrack in everyone else's earspace. Fuck you people... buy headphones!

In public transpotation too. They even put up posters insided buses which read "Don't be the f*cking DJ, use headphones!*

Or something like that.

[Tank]

Idiots.

[Asmodean]

Idiots.

YES! Burn them and salt their hides!

Eh... Who are we talking about..?  ???

... ... Oh! Headphones. Yes, well... Carry on saltin' an' burnin' then  Also, people who think that they look cool when they pass you buy in some ancient ex-daddy's car with their subwoofers creating minor earth quakes. Salt their tyres! 

[Crow]

Also, people who think that they look cool when they pass you buy in some ancient ex-daddy's car with their subwoofers creating minor earth quakes. Salt their tyres! 

The mating call of the working class new driver.