Jump to content

Seems like evetyone's an artist these days...


While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is not strictly a dating-related post, but it was inspired by some of the things said about the so-called artistic types in the now-closed 'sexy men' thread (to be clear, my comments apply to 'artistic women' as well). Basically, I just don't get this whole modern 'artistic' movement. In the past, to be considered an artist, one had to possess some semblance of talent. Nowadays, it seems that even a totally average person fancies himself an artist (or is it artiste?). I mean, it's like being an artist (or, more accurately, pretending to be an artist) has become some kind of a lifestyle for a significant portion of the young adult population.

 

Let's start with the obvious: 'bohemian' appearance. Apparently, someone decided that the androgynous/pseudo-homosexual look is the pinnacle of artistic self-expression. Also, the whole garage band thing. It seems that just about everyone is in a band these days. It doesn't matter that your band sucks harder than Ted Haggard - the very fact that you are in one means that you're an 'artistic soul'.

 

And then we have the whole 'I am too good to live in the real world' phenomenon. Go to any college and see who's studying math, sciences, engineering, accounting and other subjects that usually lead to successful careers. Chances are, you'd be hard pressed to see a white face in one of those classes. 90% of the class would be comprised of Asians and other immigrants. It seems that North Americans don't see these professions as 'artistic' enough - instead, they study things like sociology, women's issues, urban studies, interior design, 'therapeutic recreation' (don't ask me what that means, but I actually know someone who's getting a degree in that), and other subjects that at best can land you a job as a Starbucks 'barista' or a waiter at Denny's upon graduation.

 

I look at all these 'artistic' types living in ratty apartments and working crappy jobs, feeling angry at the world that doesn't recognize their 'true talents' and I feel nothing but contempt. Oh yeah, and thanks for reading my rant.

Posted

You are such a troll

Posted

Its been going on for a while though. It was definitely going on in the 60's and 70's. I think there was a brief period where pragmatism was cool with the whole Reagan Revolution thing, but I think the 90' were more even bohemian than right now. It was like you said where everyone I knew was in a band smoking hitters all day. Nowdays theyre mostly married and settled though

 

I was definitely the type that irritated you and Ive had a pretty hard time of it financially ever since so I understand where youre coming from

Posted

It's just an idealistic phase that teens and twenty-somethings go through. Notice that 99% of hippies, turned about face and embraced materialism, to the point where they've spoiled the ever livin' crap out their kids?

 

Having said that, most people have a creative side to them, some more than others. If you can make a living on your creativity, then go for it. If you can't, the hard knocks in life will catch up to you and the ones that survive and thrive, will embrace financial security over creativity, especially if they lack true talent. Everyone's gotta' eat and if they want to support a family, they're going to have to figure out a way to do so, through working.

Posted

And some of those artists actually have talent. If you have a discerning eye you can easily separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

Maybe you misunderstood my posts, but I only date artist/musician guys who actually HAVE talent. Why would I date somebody who made stuff I didn't respect?

Posted
It's just an idealistic phase that teens and twenty-somethings go through. Notice that 99% of hippies, turned about face and embraced materialism, to the point where they've spoiled the ever livin' crap out their kids?

 

Having said that, most people have a creative side to them, some more than others. If you can make a living on your creativity, then go for it. If you can't, the hard knocks in life will catch up to you and the ones that survive and thrive, will embrace financial security over creativity, especially if they lack true talent. Everyone's gotta' eat and if they want to support a family, they're going to have to figure out a way to do so, through working.

 

I believe that people should pursue what they're passionate about. If they can't make a living out of it then they can develop it on the side.

Posted
This is not strictly a dating-related post, but it was inspired by some of the things said about the so-called artistic types in the now-closed 'sexy men' thread (to be clear, my comments apply to 'artistic women' as well). Basically, I just don't get this whole modern 'artistic' movement. In the past, to be considered an artist, one had to possess some semblance of talent. Nowadays, it seems that even a totally average person fancies himself an artist (or is it artiste?). I mean, it's like being an artist (or, more accurately, pretending to be an artist) has become some kind of a lifestyle for a significant portion of the young adult population.

 

Let's start with the obvious: 'bohemian' appearance. Apparently, someone decided that the androgynous/pseudo-homosexual look is the pinnacle of artistic self-expression. Also, the whole garage band thing. It seems that just about everyone is in a band these days. It doesn't matter that your band sucks harder than Ted Haggard - the very fact that you are in one means that you're an 'artistic soul'.

 

And then we have the whole 'I am too good to live in the real world' phenomenon. Go to any college and see who's studying math, sciences, engineering, accounting and other subjects that usually lead to successful careers. Chances are, you'd be hard pressed to see a white face in one of those classes. 90% of the class would be comprised of Asians and other immigrants. It seems that North Americans don't see these professions as 'artistic' enough - instead, they study things like sociology, women's issues, urban studies, interior design, 'therapeutic recreation' (don't ask me what that means, but I actually know someone who's getting a degree in that), and other subjects that at best can land you a job as a Starbucks 'barista' or a waiter at Denny's upon graduation.

 

I look at all these 'artistic' types living in ratty apartments and working crappy jobs, feeling angry at the world that doesn't recognize their 'true talents' and I feel nothing but contempt. Oh yeah, and thanks for reading my rant.

 

The term is 'hipster' and it has been around for a few years.

Posted

Most of the people I knew didnt even bother trying to make a living of it really. It was more of an ongoing party until the check came to the table

Posted
I believe that people should pursue what they're passionate about. If they can't make a living out of it then they can develop it on the side.
Balancing hobbies with making a living is fine, as long as it's done in a pragmatic fashion. If you're starving so you can pursue your passion, with little to no talent, or potentially, little to no demand for your art, then pragmatism has to kick in sometime.
Posted

I think there's a natural tendency for people who choose a pragmatic profession to demean those who choose to follow a passion. They fail to understand that while there are plenty of poseurs who are just interested in living the lifestyle and bumming around, really honing a creative craft requires a ****load of work. People who take the lazy approach or lack talent don't get far.

Posted
I think there's a natural tendency for people who choose a pragmatic profession to demean those who choose to follow a passion. They fail to understand that while there are plenty of poseurs who are just interested in living the lifestyle and bumming around, really honing a creative craft requires a ****load of work. People who take the lazy approach or lack talent don't get far.
Isn't this the vast majority of JohnnyM's point? Not everyone IS a real artist.
Posted
Balancing hobbies with making a living is fine, as long as it's done in a pragmatic fashion. If you're starving so you can pursue your passion, with little to no talent, or potentially, little to no demand for your art, then pragmatism has to kick in sometime.

 

 

I agree, but I think most creative people nowadays opt for professions that balance creativity with pragmaticism, rather than starving for their art.

 

For instance, I'm interested in film, and I have talent for it, but because directing itself is incredibly hard to get into, I'm also honing my skills at editing, color correcting and sound design which can all make decent incomes.

Posted

I tried in vain to be a adult visual artist, but the tips were terrible and embarrasing when coworkers showed up, so that didnt' last long.

Posted
Isn't this the vast majority of JohnnyM's point? Not everyone IS a real artist.

 

Right, but I resent his post because it clumps all creative people together. Some of us do have talent, and we work hard.

Posted
I think there's a natural tendency for people who choose a pragmatic profession to demean those who choose to follow a passion. They fail to understand that while there are plenty of poseurs who are just interested in living the lifestyle and bumming around, really honing a creative craft requires a ****load of work. People who take the lazy approach or lack talent don't get far.

Well....I dont think its that simple

.

I knew classical guitarists ( the ones who gave me lessons)who were really great and they certainly had talent and worked hard, but all of them had "day jobs" because there isnt enough demand and competition is fierce in the classical music world.

 

Also a lot of art requires capital. Id like to do some experimental things with synths and some computer programs but all that stuff is really expensive. If I had a good paying job that met the pragmatic needs of the community around me Id have more to invest in my artistic hobbies.

 

The market economy has a way of balancing things out

Posted
Well....I dont think its that simple

.

I knew classical guitarists ( the ones who gave me lessons)who were really great and they certainly had talent and worked hard, but all of them had "day jobs" because there isnt enough demand and competition is fierce in the classical music world.

 

Also a lot of art requires capital. Id like to do some experimental things with synths and some computer programs but all that stuff is really expensive. If I had a good paying job that met the pragmatic needs of the community around me Id have more to invest in my artistic hobbies.

 

The market economy has a way of balancing things out

 

Right, and making it in the art world is often more about connections and what's in vogue than actual talent. Which is why it makes sense to have a pragmatic backup or balance.

Posted
I agree, but I think most creative people nowadays opt for professions that balance creativity with pragmaticism, rather than starving for their art.

 

For instance, I'm interested in film, and I have talent for it, but because directing itself is incredibly hard to get into, I'm also honing my skills at editing, color correcting and sound design which can all make decent incomes.

Would you be willing to move away from your home area?

  • Author
Posted
Having said that, most people have a creative side to them, some more than others.

Most people also have a brainy side to them. Do you know anyone who solves math equations or creates chess problems for fun? If you do, chances are these people are over 70. And yes, doing things like that was not at all weird or uncommon in the past - just ask your grandparents if they are still alive.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a math nerd as some kind of an ideal towards which young people should strive for. The problem is that we, as a society, have lost all sense of balance and are putting way too much emphasis on artistic self-expression. In the past, the human ideal was to be a Renaissance Man - someone who is well versed in both arts and sciences and is athletic to boot. Nowadays, the idols that young people worship are dysfunctional 'performance artists'.

Posted
Would you be willing to move away from your home area?

 

I know I'll have to move once I'm out of shcool.

Posted
Isn't this the vast majority of JohnnyM's point? Not everyone IS a real artist.

I think Johnny M is wrong in that instance. I think its foolish for people to expect to make a living as an artist, but if they are creating art they are a real artist.

 

Doesnt mean they are a good artist. Thats different. Doesnt mean they can make a living at it. Thats different. And whether they are good and whether they can make a living are two different things as well

  • Author
Posted
I think there's a natural tendency for people who choose a pragmatic profession to demean those who choose to follow a passion. They fail to understand that while there are plenty of poseurs who are just interested in living the lifestyle and bumming around, really honing a creative craft requires a ****load of work. People who take the lazy approach or lack talent don't get far.

The problem with the people who have 'chosen to follow their passion' is that someone has to feed them - and usually it's either their parents, their spouses, or the state (welfare).

Posted
Most people also have a brainy side to them. Do you know anyone who solves math equations or creates chess problems for fun? If you do, chances are these people are over 70. And yes, doing things like that was not at all weird or uncommon in the past - just ask your grandparents if they are still alive.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a math nerd as some kind of an ideal towards which young people should strive for. The problem is that we, as a society, have lost all sense of balance and are putting way too much emphasis on artistic self-expression. In the past, the human ideal was to be a Renaissance Man - someone who is well versed in both arts and sciences and is athletic to boot. Nowadays, the idols that young people worship are dysfunctional 'performance artists'.

Common sense will catch up to people who aren't realistic about their talents. But the "starving artist" is no different than the "starving intellectual". If you're no good at it, you'll just starve.
Posted
Isn't this the vast majority of JohnnyM's point? Not everyone IS a real artist.

 

And what defines a real artist? Unless you're talking about the extreme of someone who just loafs and lives the lifestyle, most people with heavily creative professions would probably qualify as artists.

 

Talent is also subjective as taste is. What one person considers good art isn't what another person does. And success isn't a good measure of ability or artistic merit because it's highly dependent on the whims of the market.

Posted
Most people also have a brainy side to them. Do you know anyone who solves math equations or creates chess problems for fun? If you do, chances are these people are over 70. And yes, doing things like that was not at all weird or uncommon in the past - just ask your grandparents if they are still alive.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a math nerd as some kind of an ideal towards which young people should strive for. The problem is that we, as a society, have lost all sense of balance and are putting way too much emphasis on artistic self-expression. In the past, the human ideal was to be a Renaissance Man - someone who is well versed in both arts and sciences and is athletic to boot. Nowadays, the idols that young people worship are dysfunctional 'performance artists'.

You sound like an ancient Roman decrying the new feminine wave of men embodied best by the Emperor Nero

 

This kind of debate has raged forever

Posted
I think Johnny M is wrong in that instance. I think its foolish for people to expect to make a living as an artist, but if they are creating art they are a real artist.

 

Doesnt mean they are a good artist. Thats different. Doesnt mean they can make a living at it. Thats different. And whether they are good and whether they can make a living are two different things as well

Well that's why I made reference to making a living and also, supply and demand. No matter how open you are to aesthetic differences, some "art" really is crap. You must admit this.
×
×
  • Create New...