You say -
So my question is: if I never again turned any of my experiences into some
kind of 'art' format, if I ceased to become a maker, if I just experienced
it for myself and moved on --- would I still be an artist?
Is being an artist all about 'data in / data out' ? Or is 'data in'
sufficient on its own?
I guess I know the answer, that you will all say that unless there is
'data out' the person cannot be called an artist, but then my next
question would have to be about the optimum ratio. Or, to put it another
way, is '100% data in / 1% data out' a waste?
- Having been around artists all my life, this question makes no sense to
me. Calling someone an artist is dependent on language games, who is
speaking, what demographics, under what circumstances, for whom, in what
context. I've never worried about who calls me an artist and who doesn't,
and if someone wants to be considered an artist, that's fine. There are
canonic implications that are problematic, in particular in relation to
folk art (I can give you the ref. wrote an article or two on it) -
problematic because class and political structure are involved. But that's
from the viewpoint of connoisseurship, something else again.
How can you possibly ask "is being an artist all about' X? Whatever X is?
I don't understand the question...
- Alan
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt -
revised 7/05 )
**********
To alter your subscription settings, log on to Subscriber's Corner at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/writing-and-the-digital-life.html
To unsubscribe, email [log in to unmask] with a blank subject line and the following text in the body of the message: SIGNOFF WRITING-AND-THE-DIGITAL-LIFE
|