- June 15th, 2010
- 41 Comments »
- creative thinking
Why you are not an Artist
Picasso. Van Gogh. Beethoven. Jimi Hendrix. Kurosawa. Kafka. Magritte. Bukowski. These are people most agree are worthy of the title ‘Artist’.
But what if you met them before they were famous?
In much of their own lives, certainly for Van Gogh, or Kafka, they didn’t have fame. And in the case of many Artists, including Magritte and Bukowski, their work wasn’t widely accepted until late in their careers. We’d need some other criteria than success to identify them for what they are.
And my argument is for most people reading this post, whatever criteria we’d invent, few of us would meet the bar in our jobs. Their dedication to their work, and the risks they were willing to take to achieve their artistic visions, were well beyond ours.
And this isn’t solely because of our (lack of) talent – instead my point is to be an Artist requires a specific intent. An intent that nearly everyone with a full time job does not have while doing that job. You might be an artist in your spare time, but that’s something else entirely.
While you might have grand aesthetics in your work, or amazing skills that seem magical to others, that is mere artistry. How you employ those talents determines whether you are an Artist or not. And sure, you might be the best in your field of designing websites or selling cars, but that’s mastery. The big question is this: you mastery of skill is used in service of what? A corporation? Some stockholders? Customer satisfaction goals? These might be honorable pursuits, perhaps noble in some sense, but that’s not enough to call it art.
Think of Guernica, The Seven Samurai, The Mona Lisa, or your favorite, most powerful work by your favorite Artist. What is it about their work that impacts you? It’s more than just talent. It’s something to do with the aims they used their talent for. We wouldn’t put a box of laundry detergent (except perhaps for Warhol),or a piece of business software, however wonderfully designed they might be, in the same class of creative effort. We all know there is a distinction, however fuzzy or personal, between one kind of thing and another.
I think to call someone an Artist means they have some sense of a higher purpose beyond commerce. Not that they don’t profit from their work, or promote themselves, but that the work itself has spiritual, philosophical, emotional or experiential attributes as central goals. An artist’s work is about an idea, a feeling, or an exploration of a form, framed more by their own intuitions, than the checklists and protocols of bureaucracies and corporations.
Simply put, there are three main points:
- An Artist is committed to their ideas in ways most people are not. An Artist will risk many things, wealth, convenience, popularity, fame or even friends and family to protect the integrity of their ideas. If you’re not risking anything, and mostly doing what you are told, you’re probably not an artist.
- This means anyone who constantly sacrifices their own ideals, and regularly makes major compromises to satisfy the inferior opinions of ‘superiors’ they do not respect, can not sincerely call their work art. And therefore, can not call themselves Artists.
- An Artist would be willing to sign their name on what they give to the world. Are you proud of what your company makes? Does it go out the door with even half the soul you put into your designs? If you ship things to the world that are beneath your own bar, can you call it art in the same way you would if it met that bar?
The definition game rarely leads anywhere. You can find many different definitions for the words art, artist and artistry to support any point of view, as it’s an active area of debate. But my favorite definition of artist is:
- A person who creates, by virtue of imagination, talent or skill, works of aesthetic value, especially, but not limited to, the fine arts.
- A person who creates art (even bad art) as an occupation
If you make paintings, movies, novels or similiar things, of course you’re an artist. Even if your work sucks (however we determine that), and even if you do it part time, or have never been paid a dime for your art, you still qualify.
But if you work for clients/bosses in the making of things that you yourself would not consider art, or are beneath your own standard, or that you blame others you work with for ruining, you are not an Artist. You are an employee. You are being paid to give someone else authority over your creative decisions. This can involve inspiration, effort, sacrifice, passion, brilliance, and many other noble things, but it’s not the same as being an Artist.
Related: Why Creatives are confused
(This post was inspired by this tweet by @SharonG)
If you liked this post, you'll love Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Minds, a new best-of collection of Berkun's famous essays and posts from 2000-2011.
Buy now on Amazon.com $8.69 (print / kindle), Barnes & Noble, & iBookstore.
Like this? There's more - Free monthly email
Get the most popular posts each month delivered to your inbox. No hassle, no tricks. (privacy policy)
Subscribe
About Scott Berkun
I'm the author of three bestselling books.
I write about ideas and how they work.
More about me and what I do here.
Subscribe to this blog
Follow on Twitter
Facebook page
Connect on LinkedIn
Ask a question in email
Scott's Books
- (NEW) Mindfire: Big Ideas for Curious Minds
- The definitive best of collection of provocative essays and entertaining posts from over a decade of great writing, curated into one amazing little book.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample (PDF)
- Confessions of a
Public Speaker - Behind-the-scenes tales from the life of a successful public speaker, teaches how to be a great communicator. Recommended by the WSJ, lifehacker, Wired and more.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample
- The Myths of Innovation
(New Paperback edition) - As discussed on CNBC, MSNBC and NPR, entertains and frees you from the myths of creativity. Teaches patterns & lessons for bringing ideas into the world. Updated edition w/4 new chapters.
- Buy on Amazon / Sample (pdf)
- Making Things Happen
- The bestselling handbook for any project manager, revised and updated, packed with tactics, stories and leadership lessons from the trenches.
- Buy on Amazon
41 thoughts on “Why you are not an Artist”
Wait, didn’t you write a book titled “The ART of Project Management”?
You explained above that “mastery of skill in that domain(used in service to a corporation)” is not art, so how would you rename your book title?
Jon:
1. I have never called myself an artist. Then or now.
2. It might seem like splitting hairs, but writing ‘the art of FOO’ means something different than saying ‘FOO is art’
3. And even if you think 1 & 2 are copouts, I wrote this post today. I wrote that book over 5 years ago. I grant myself the right to contradict myself provided the more recent incarnation of my opinions are wiser than the previous.
4. The book was renamed in 2008 to ‘Making Things Happen’
5. And even if you don’t buy 1,2 or 3, leave me out of it :) Do you agree with the points in the post independent of me and my behavior?
Fair points. (I didn’t know about #4… d’oh.)
As to the content of the blog, you said:
“You are being paid to give someone else authority over your creative decisions.”
I can do that with my (artist’s) consent, just as an artist can let a benefactor influence where they might add some brushstrokes. If that influence is consistent with the artist’s values or intentions, I don’t see how it makes that artist less of an artist.
You said: “I think to call someone an Artist means they have some sense of a higher purpose beyond commerce… the work itself has spiritual, philosophical, emotional or experiential attributes as central goals.”
Then that’s me. I speak at testing conferences and I write a testing blog and say things like: “Testing is a craft, dear colleagues, and I’ve given you a few examples of artistry in that domain. It takes skill to do testing well. It is knowledge-work, so requires sapience. As such, we deserve respect as equals to programmers. Testing need not be a mundane job for the lowest caste and here is why…”
Moreover, some colleagues agree with me that testing is not only an art, but under tight constraints, it is akin to a *martial* art.
One of my favorite colleagues has opened a business devoted to learning Agile software development. She has called it Agilistry (Agility & Artistry). After having been at one of the weeklong experiential workshops she hosted, I see why she calls it a “studio.” We were in service to a stakeholder the whole week, but each one of us used our artistry (skill, judgment, technique) to deliver something of value to them, with our consent.
So, to sum it up, “art is anything you do because you simply can’t do otherwise”
You said: “to be an Artist requires a specific intent.” I think to be an Artist requires a specific vision.
Because Art is a creative endeavor, we tend to think that being creative is the same as being artistic. Being creative is a human trait, and anyone can be creative in any job, no matter how mundane the job. But every job still requires that you follow the vision of your supervisor, your CEO, your board of directors, and ultimately, the vision of society. Artists follow their own vision.
As always, Scott, great thought-provoking post. I was wondering what your thoughts were on Seth Godin’s definition of art: that it’s created to have an impact or change someone else, and that it is a gift (products can be sold, but the idea is free). Also interesting is Roger Ebert’s ongoing debate that video games can never be art. Keep up the good work.
What about a fashion designer?
Hi Scott, great topic yet again.
This reminds me of the eternal discussion on the differences between ‘art’ and ‘design’. To me ‘art’ is internally driven and often solitary (as Steve pointed out), whereas ‘design’ is essentially problem-solving driven by external need and usually done in collaboration with others. Both activities are creative in nature.
The one point I’d like to debate is: “I think to call someone an Artist means they have some sense of a higher purpose beyond commerce” and specifically the word ‘higher’, which can a certain value judgment ring to it. What of artists who are ‘only’ trying to exorcise their inner demons? Criticise society from their personal point of view? Or just play a prank on the unsuspecting public? Their endeavours are non-commercial for sure but are they really ‘higher’ in purpose?
Thanks for posting.
I like to believe that people have something that they value: Spirituality, family, community, craft, profession, etc.
I know that I do. I strive to improve. I like to believe that others do the same. There is always more to learn. It’s exciting and I enjoy it. I like to believe that others do, too. I have things in my life that I will never do well. Most of those don’t matter to me. Many that I’m OK at and a few that I’m proud of. I will never be known or remembered, but that’s OK.
I bust my butt to do my job to the best of my ability. Forces beyond my control: Management, funding, time constraints dictate the size of the box I get stuck in. Sometimes the size of that box is so restricting I just want to barf. Even so, I do my utmost of provide the best quality product I can, given the constraints I am stuck with.
Think twice next time you call customer service and “Joe” answers. He may be twelve time zones ahead of you, but has been constrained to say/do only certain things. One of those things may well be to up sell. Before you burn a hole into the telephone, remember he is only doing what he has been permitted/instructed to do.
Looking past all the clutter (constraints) obstructing my path I’m proud of what I do.
Great post – and comments.
The words I would use to describe some of the distinctions you draw are intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations. I believe artistry is a matter of degree, and that a “true” or “pure” artist is primarily, if not solely, driven by intrinsic motivations – expressing some intuitive self-evident truth that may or may not resonate with others (in the artist’s culture or lifetime).
I think this distinction also applies to the distinction you make in responding to Jon between “FOO is art” and “the art of FOO”: the latter (to me) denotes a certain lack of extrinsic definition, and so one has to rely on one’s intuitions in order to make progress.
From what I remember, it seems that The Art of Project Management had parts that highlighted the value of intuitions and intrinsic motivations. Any project that has more than one participant is going to have some external constraints (and thus extrinsic motivations), and so I suppose cannot be “pure” art.
To me, “artist” is just a label like any other. Someone can see an artist where someone else will see an automaton. The values you point out are good ones but I think there is danger in associating them with the label “artist” because it implies superiority and believe me, we have enough of that within the arts let alone between the arts and other domains. “Artistes” shouldn’t be encouraged to think that anyone else’s work should be held in deference to theirs. As someone that employs an “Artistic Director” title for one part of my life (simply because I work in the arts and direct things) and a “Manager” title for another part, I don’t feel or want people to think the gap is so huge.
Interesting post Scott – I think that to be considered an Artist you have to be of an unbending will when it comes to the intent of your work, and that if you allow too many compromises then that too compromises yourself as an artist and your ability to view yourself as an Artist.
Although Hendrix himself, according to recent BBC documentary on Rock & Roll Bands, allowed fear of alienating his fans to control certain aspects of his performance e.g adopting certain cliches of his performances, such as playing guitar behind his back and endless repeats of Voodoo-Child on the whole an Artist is prepared to bleed for his art.
Like most things, this isn’t a black and white issue of “Are you an artist all the time, or none of the time?”
Sometimes we’re artists, standing up for our ideas and standards, and sometimes we need to fall back to just being great employees, for the sake of keeping a job to feed our family.
I guarantee that Van Gogh, Hendrix, and the other “artists” you mentioned above made compromises to make ends meet just like everyone else has.
Maybe I take it for granted, and maybe I’m just optimistic, but I believe that every “employee” has a higher goal in mind than just getting paid and making their superiors happy. How frequently we compromise on our values and push out garbage we’re sometimes asked (and paid) to create will depend on if we’re perceived as artists or not, according to the definition you’ve outlined.
Let’s face it, a lot of times the issues we’re uncompromising on aren’t noticed. I bet Van Gogh felt that way until the day he ended his life. I suppose to be more like those “artists” we admire, we should be steadfast in the hope that our efforts will be realized even after we’re gone.
Very cool article, thanks for that, Scott! =)
Curious post, which I genuinely enjoyed. I’m wondering what inspired you to write this. I’ve heard many people referred to as “artists” but I have never actually met anyone who has called themselves an “artist”. Personally, I tend to look on anyone calling themselves an “artist” with great skepticism. Self-proclaimed “gurus” also cause me to doubt.
On another note (related to your third main point), is a non-signed lithograph any less artistic? Just because Andy Warhol didn’t sign all the many copies produced of his work, does that make him less of an artist? Or are you suggesting that it is enough to be willing to take credit for a particular work, without actually leaving your mark? Or are you implying that insecure folks wait to see what the critics have to say before admiting to their artistic contributions?
Just curious…
I disagree with your broad usage of ‘artist’. There’s a difference between the arts, and the differences are as subtle as the practices themselves. I’m a commercial artist, and the classical painters you mentioned are fine artists.
I agree with Jason’s post. This isn’t as black and white as the post portrays.
Applying your “artist” criteria, someone who marries a rich person, quits her job and spends her leisure time dabbling in her hobbies while calling it an occupation is an “artist”. Someone who works her ass off at a boring job to support herself and fiercely pursues her artistic passion in her spare time is not an “artist”. Your definition equates being an artist with socioeconomic privilege – someone can only be an artist if they make a lot of money at it or have someone else to support them. That’s way off the mark of what most people consider an artist to be.
The razors that resonate with me are creativity and passion. Those are invariant of how a person works, how their life is structured or even whether they consider themselves an artist.
But, as you say, the definition game leads down a rabbit hole full of conundrums and ultimately leads back to “what is art?” to which there is only one answer: Mu.
Jon:
I’d disagree with you based on the claims of this post.
“I speak at testing conferences and I write a testing blog and say things like…”
I don’t think testing qualifies as an Art. Neither does engineering software. The primary goal of these pursuits is functional – to make a thing that solves a practical problem. It can be done skillfully, or with artistry, but I don’t think we can put testing software in the same class of Art as you would a painting, a symphony, a novel or a play.
Even moreso, the fact that you are giving talks about testing is one step removed from the actual activity. You’re talking *about* testing. I wouldn’t call talking *about* sculpture an art either.
This doesn’t mean you aren’t very good at what you do, or that it isn’t important, but I would not call it Art.
The fascinating thing so far in this post is how many people seem to have skimmed it. It’s very hard to defend myself against things I didn’t quite say :)
I’d happily concede to a better definition. But I do sincerely believe most people, most of the time, even everyone who seems to disagree with some of my points, draws a distinction somewhere in the territory I’m trying to lay out.
I’m aware most painters, including some of the ones I mentioned, took commissions. Being paid doesn’t make you “not an Artist”. That’s dumb, and I didn’t quite say that.
But I did say:
“if you work for clients/bosses in the making of things that you yourself would not consider art, or are beneath your own standard, or that you blame others you work with for ruining, you are not an Artist. You are an employee.”
Jussi wrote:
> The one point I’d like to debate is:
> “I think to call someone an Artist means
> they have some sense of a higher purpose
> beyond commerce” and specifically the word
> ‘higher’, which can a certain value judgment
> ring to it. What of artists who are ‘only’
> trying to exorcise their inner demons?
> Criticise society from their personal
> point of view? Or just play a prank on the
> unsuspecting public? Their endeavours are
> non-commercial for sure but are they
> really ‘higher’ in purpose?
I think exorcising demons counts as a purpose. As is criticizing society. I’d even accept making fun of art and the idea of art (e.g. Duchamp’s Readymades) Even the desire to make people happy, or to be popular, or famous might count. These are things in the artists mind that they are using their talents to satisfy/explore/resolve.
Joe:
Most excellent! Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic. I think that’s definitely an undercurrent of what I was trying to express.
K:
Your example conveniently misses several of the attributes I mentioned.
Most importantly:
“If you’re not risking anything, and mostly doing what you are told, you’re probably not an artist.”
The rich hobbyist has little personally at stake (e.g. dabbling).
And on the other end you wrote “Someone who works her ass off at a boring job to support herself and fiercely pursues her artistic passion in her spare time is not an “artist””.
Of course they’d qualify – I explicitly say so in the 2nd to last paragraph.
John:
The fact you draw a distinction between Commercial Art and Fine Art suggests to me we’re not that far apart.
Would you have swallowed this more if the title said “Why you are not a Fine Artist?”
Scott,
What do you think of the distinction between an artist & a craftsman? Once, being a master of a craft was a term of distinction. And, each artist has mastery of a craft that provides the context for their work. Being called a great craftsman would be a mark of honor for me, and much more within my reach than creating a great piece of art, no matter how much I wish for that.
drm
Dan:
I think being a craftsman, a designer, an engineer, or a dozen other labels are all great things to be. There is certainly creativity and artistry and craft in all of them.
I detect some human ego factor in some of the replies.
I for one will respect a good craftsman, good commercial artist or good plumber as much as I respect a good artist. I don’t worry which vocation is “superior” but I would worry if society stopped respecting good work.
In a sense, the artist is willing to willing to work without a hierarchy of goodness. In Van Gogh’s day he was not more good at art than any journeyman or apprentice. How lonely not to have peers. But I’m sure he felt a good calling.
Regarding whether an artist would create merely to be critical or pull a prank: For me this would not serve a higher purpose, and, forgive me for sounding mystical, but without such purpose my Muse would not touch me, and my “creation” would feel hollow.
Pingback: links for 2010-06-16
Scott wrote:
“I think exorcising demons counts as a purpose. As is criticizing society. I’d even accept making fun of art and the idea of art (e.g. Duchamp’s Readymades)”
Fair enough, all good points.
Also, Scott referring Joe’s comment:
“Most excellent! Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic. I think that’s definitely an undercurrent of what I was trying to express.”
This is a great way of putting it and in line with what I was trying to say above. Thanks Joe!
I’m sorry to say that but your definition of an Artist is not enough limited. With your definition, a terrorist is an Artist :
A terrorist is committed to their ideas in ways most people are not.
A terrorist does not sacrifice his own ideals.
A terrorist would be willing to sign their name on what they give to the world.
Pingback: Programador Artista no InfoQ | sauloarruda.eti.br
Great Article! I’ve wrote an opinion about it on InfoQ Brasil today (http://www.infoq.com/br/news/2010/06/programador-artista) in Portuguese. Thank you for inspiration!
What your definition is missing is that to be an Artist, you have to truly not give a shit what anyone else thinks about what you are doing.
Artist is a word that expresses the individualism and self-expression of art, performance, music, etc. It is art for art sake… Heard of that term before? It is creating what you believe in and what you see or hear… your personal expression, not caring or thinking about what others think… That is a true artist.
Anyone who does otherwise or being paid or told to do any creativity their field, are not artist but are professional commercial creators. These kind of art, are created by collaboration and team work to create a product. They are not artist but designers, art directors, illustrators, musicians and more.
So before you stem someone as an Artist… think again!
Wallace Stevens worked as Vice President of Hartford Insurance for decades and wrote arguably the best American poetry of the 20th century. Charles Ives had a similar profession. Jean Genet was a thief. Balzac was a prolific hack writer. Richard Dadd killed his father and did his best work in an asylum. Picasso was a pig with women (se SAuviving Picasso). Dali was a fascist. Rimbaud ended his days as a slave trader. John Sayles has funded most of his films — LOne Star, EIght Men Out, Matewan, Nrother from Another Planet –by writing genre scripts such as Piranha, Alligator, The Howling and The Challenge. SCorsese and James Cameron and Sayles all wrote B-movie scripts for Roger Corman.
I found your model of an artist pretty restrictive and a bit pious for my taste. Many roadslead to Rome.
Artists make art. Art is based on an idea that is typically not a function for commerce (pop art, etc. aside). Design can have a commercial function.
That’s why it’s difficult to for me to call most of the contemporary, gold-framed impressionistic work “Art.”
Why is it important to define who is an artist and who is not? This is not a conversation I find myself engaging in or find other artists engaging in. Whose work you like and respect..sure. Why you hate hack commericalism…sure.
What is the value of making these distinctions? What was your goal Scott. As for intent..that certainly is everything in making art, breaking the law, growing a business or better, as a person.
Heather:
Why? Sharon had this tweet I disagreed with, so I wrote this to sort out how I disagreed. She wrote “All who create are artists, regardless of the medium”.
Fundamentally I hate pretense. People who call themselves artists are often pretentious. Offering my idea of what an artist is I hoped would defuse the confusion among designers, engineers or advertisers, and even myself, as to how what they do, however creative it is, is still different (and I think less noble) than what Kafka, Van Gogh, or Mozart was up to.
Having your work centralized around your own idea and not that of the people means you are sacrificing what the people want for what you want and this definitely means you are sacrificing wealth and in most cases, not just wealth. This is a very rare gift not so many people have. Anyway, I just located your blog via google and I’m loving it. Keep up the good work.
Pingback: Living Life At The Speed of Trust | Tony Teegarden | Social Media Blogging | Personal Development
Artists, as opposed to designers, are not constrained in what they do to communicate their message. Even if a designer had the most radical ideas and intentions, the purpose of their design, usually selling whatever it is they are designing for automatically limits their potential. They have to take into account cultural constraints, expectations, business practices, economical implications, superior opinion etc etc. Artists however are inherently free of all limits but maybe physics and funding. That, and that only is what makes artists artists in my opinion. They don’t have a purpose to reach, no schedule to comply and no superiors (usually) to please.
And many artists weren’t so sure about themselves – a lot of them worked under pseudonyms or even shoved other people out front to bear the public reception (Shakespeare).
Incidentally, whether Bukowski is an artists is up for debate; causing controversy is certainly an aspect of art, but not art in itself. A lot of wannabe artists get this mixed up.
Pingback: Why You Are Not an Artist… (Excerpt) « henderjes7
I studied Fine Art in College. I know how to draw and paint. Some of the subjects I studied in College were Anatomy, Landscape Painting, Photography, Art History. Now, I still draw and paint(in the traditional manner) but I also can do designs and ‘artwork’ digitally. I have a growing library of Art Books with titles ranging from the Renaissance to Picasso to Dali to Cucchi. I know how to paint in the technique used by Rubens(I do my best at least). Besides painting, I do photography(film before and Digital now), Sculpture, Installation and Conceptual Art. But in spite all of this, I never had a Solo Art Show, even a Group Art Show. To make a living, I’m a freelance Graphic Designer, Illustrator, Photographer and ‘Artist’. Can I be called an ‘Artist’ then?