The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Is a musician always an artist? Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 15th January 2017
  #301
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
Sure Eno is an "Artist" but here it get's complicated.

If Eno hires me in to play drums on a track and I play like a perfect, squeaky clean studio musician that might as well of been Slate Digital Samples programmed .... am I an "Artist" or just a jobbing musician an "artist" small "a"

But if Eno, hired me in and I was eccentric as heck in my approach and had a unique set of drums, tuned in a unique way, and I played in a unique way and made unique othexr worldly sounds when I played that everyone immediately could identify as being "thehightenor" then would I be called an "Artist" Yes I think I would be.

To me the "Artist" always begins with a capital A an "Artist"

Some are an "artist" the unique and gifted are an "Artist" - it takes something very special to earn the capital "A" in my view of the arts.

I appreciate other peoples definition is completely different.

By the way if you did hire me to play drums on your track I'm afraid you get the former description above not the latter :-)
I think it's relative and contextual.

If you're a producer and needed drum tracks laid down on a honky tonk tune, by your description, then if you hired Jack DeJohnette over Charlie Watts, then he'd be more of an artist. (and as great as Jack is, Charlie would be a better choice I'd think)

And, as vanilla as Charlie is at times, I think many consider him an artist on the drums. At least I do...
Old 15th January 2017
  #302
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
Boltzmann brain was a theory, if I recall.


Hypothesis, not theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
Which brings that whole notion into question as well. Apparently you believe more strongly that I exist, since you chose the option to reply to my statement.
The point being that the argument you made was meaningless.
Old 15th January 2017
  #303
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Hypothesis, not theory.
Perhaps you'd like to take the opportunity to expound on the difference between these two words as well.



Quote:
The point being that the argument you made was meaningless.
That's almost a double negative. Your assertion proved nothing.

Last edited by johnny nowhere; 15th January 2017 at 07:51 PM.. Reason: common correction for uncommon times.
Old 15th January 2017
  #304
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
Perhaps you'd like to take the opportunity to expound on the difference between these two words as well.
I'm detecting a hint of facetiousness..... Google is your friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
That's almost a double negative. Your assertion proved nothing.
No, it did. In what way did what I said not make sense, logically?
Old 15th January 2017
  #305
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I'm detecting a hint of facetiousness..... Google is your friend.



No, it did. In what way did what I said not make sense, logically?
No. Google will not lead to enlightenment. Thinking so seems to be a major fad of late, however. A working hypothesis is a theory. End of discussion.

In any forum of reasoning, you've yet to make a valid argument. You have countered my point with no other point except to disagree. You are talking in circles even now. You've given no purpose for further response.
Old 15th January 2017
  #306
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
[FONT="Georgia"]No. Google will not lead to enlightenment. Thinking so seems to be a major fad of late, however.
What the point is when many people write things like that is that if we're dealing with, for example, something simple like the difference between the word "hypothesis" and "theory", it's often easier and faster for someone to just google it and read up on it on Wikipedia or some other good resource, rather than write another long reply in a thread. You thinking it won't enlighten you only means you think you're right and you don't want to look it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
A working hypothesis is a theory. End of discussion.
With a theory you can make predictions, then perform test, after which you can evaluate the resulting data coming from actual measurements and see if your results match the prediction.

I don't think that's been done for Boltzmann Brains, and I don't think it can be done. If it has been done please let me know where I can read about those predictions, tests and results. I'm betting you'll find that nowhere.

(Juxtapose the above to gravity, electro-magnetism, etc)

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
In any forum of reasoning, you've yet to make a valid argument. You have countered my point with no other point except to disagree.
I actually most certainly did make a valid argument.

1. You argued that one can't state that art can be objectively evaluated, because it all goes through our minds, and as such everything is inherently subjective.

2. Therefore, since everything that anyone expresses has passed through their mind anything anyone ever expresses is inherently subjective.

3. Therefore, ANY assertion can not be said to be truly objective, but only subjective.

4. Therefore, ANY assertion can be countered with #1 , namely that "That's just your subjective opinion." (paraphrased)

In other words, it's like playing poker where everyone gets five jokers in addition to their regular five cards, and if someone wants to argue they have a straight, or a flush, or whatever, anyone can simply say "Well I've got a royal flush, because that's what I say it is".... and we'd all have to agree that that's the case.

So even though you made the assertions you made in your post (this one), you don't know if that's true, because what you say is just the result of your impressions of the world, "filtered through your brain", which means that "all hope was lost" in terms of you having a shot at objectively assert anything at all.

In your own words:

"the term 'objective' is one that humans cannot apply to any given subject without turning it into a subjective term."

"Once we filter anything through the brain, all hope is lost."

"Human objectivity is a dream.


Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny nowhere View Post
You've given no purpose for further response.
Of course I haven't....
Old 15th January 2017
  #307
I already made my case for my rather unimaginative (if, to me, commonsensical) approach to the OP topic question which is why I've been perhaps uncommonly quiet, even as I keep checking back in to read.

But I did note that hypothesis versus theory had arisen as a subtopic.

This lays out differences in denotation and connotation in both technical and common use:

Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
Old 15th January 2017
  #308
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
I already made my case for my rather unimaginative (if, to me, commonsensical) approach to the OP topic question which is why I've been perhaps uncommonly quiet, even as I keep checking back in to read.

But I did note that hypothesis versus theory had arisen as a subtopic.

This lays out differences in denotation and connotation in both technical and common use:

Hypothesis vs Theory - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
You are correct. It ends up merely 'word play'. A sad acceptance level of the beauty of creativity, in all it's forms.
Old 15th January 2017
  #309
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
I think it's relative and contextual.

If you're a producer and needed drum tracks laid down on a honky tonk tune, by your description, then if you hired Jack DeJohnette over Charlie Watts, then he'd be more of an artist. (and as great as Jack is, Charlie would be a better choice I'd think)

And, as vanilla as Charlie is at times, I think many consider him an artist on the drums. At least I do...
I've not read every post, but has anyone said or does anyone here consider themselves to be an artist?

You know .... a true "Artist"

As opposed to being a consummate musician or prolific composer, highly accomplished in his "art"

I'm not sure we can bestow such a label on ourselves - over use of the word renders it prosaic.

I'm a full time multi-instrumentalist, composer, arranger, vocalist and performer of 37 years standing but I'm definitely not an "Artist" although I would of loved to have been :-)
Old 15th January 2017
  #310
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
You are correct. It ends up merely 'word play'. A sad acceptance level of the beauty of creativity, in all it's forms.
Not really though. Nobody here is not accepting "beauty of creativity, in all it's forms" as far as I can see. Seems like some people are just completely missing the point(s)...
Old 15th January 2017
  #311
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I've not read every post, but has anyone said or does anyone here consider themselves to be an artist?

You know .... a true "Artist"

As opposed to being a consummate musician or prolific composer, highly accomplished in his "art"

I'm not sure we can bestow such a label on ourselves - over use of the word renders it prosaic.

I'm a full time multi-instrumentalist, composer, arranger, vocalist and performer of 37 years standing but I'm definitely not an "Artist" although I would of loved to have been :-)
I think the above makes an excellent point. I at one point tried to be an artist, and in some aspects at times succeeded I think, but for the most part I think I was a craftsman striving towards being an artist, something I eventually gave up (once I switched from playing to engineering).
Old 15th January 2017
  #312
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I think the above makes an excellent point. I at one point tried to be an artist, and in some aspects at times succeeded I think, but for the most part I think I was a craftsman striving towards being an artist, something I eventually gave up (once I switched from playing to engineering).
If in the process you have created something, then you are an artist or have been, whether you like it or not.
Old 15th January 2017
  #313
Gear Guru
 
kafka's Avatar
Hell, sometimes a musician isn't even a musician. Sometimes they just hire musicians.
Old 15th January 2017
  #314
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I've not read every post, but has anyone said or does anyone here consider themselves to be an artist?

You know .... a true "Artist"

As opposed to being a consummate musician or prolific composer, highly accomplished in his "art"

I'm not sure we can bestow such a label on ourselves - over use of the word renders it prosaic.

I'm a full time multi-instrumentalist, composer, arranger, vocalist and performer of 37 years standing but I'm definitely not an "Artist" although I would of loved to have been :-)
You and I are sort of in agreement that the label 'artist' cannot be self bestowed, as it's somewhat disingenuous, and like I said before, sort of like giving one's self a nickname - it's tacky, pompous and inherently self-aggrandizing.

That said, who'd be so clueless and self absorbed to say that they consider themselves an 'artist'? A loaded question, no?

I'm too much into music, in an almost irrational way, but I'd consider myself more of an artist when I cook...I really let 'er rip when I do my thing making dishes, and while I do get complements about my music and talent from people, I've had more people tell me certain things I made were the best things they ever tasted of that particular dish...it's at the same time gratifying and deflating.

The only important thing is, instead of worrying about labels and attention, the best course of action is to be as true to one's self as possible and try not to compromise at the pursuit of one's craft or discipline, and the rest will take care of itself.
Old 15th January 2017
  #315
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
If in the process you have created something, then you are an artist or have been, whether you like it or not.
This just brings us back to the original question and to the other topic. I will maintain the view that to a lot of craftsmen and artists (not the same thing) in the field of "the arts" there is a difference between a sort of "generic" craftsman, which could loosely be called an 'artist' simply because the person works as a craftsman in the field of the arts and creates works that can be classified as belonging to an 'art form', and on the other hand "artists".

The sense in which there is a difference is similar to the sense in which there is a difference between a car commercial and a film by, say, Bergman. The director of the former is still a director, still a creator, still creating something whose form is compatible to those of works of art (i.e. the art form is the moving image+sound), etc, but is doing it purely for the purpose of making money. The latter has all the same attributes with the exception of aiming for the creation of actual art. If you don't like Bergman as an example you can pick someone else.

Either way I think the distinction is clear to a lot of artists and craftsmen.
Old 15th January 2017
  #316
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
You and I are sort of in agreement that the label 'artist' cannot be self bestowed, as it's somewhat disingenuous, and like I said before, sort of like giving one's self a nickname - it's tacky, pompous and inherently self-aggrandizing.
But the latter terms don't equate to "disingenuous". It may still be accurate, as annoying as it may be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
That said, who'd be so clueless and self absorbed to say that they consider themselves an 'artist'? A loaded question, no?
You're saying that "artists" are self absorbed!? Nooooooo.... that can't possibly be true!!!

But seriously, I would argue that if there indeed is a difference an awareness of it and an attempt to fall into the category of being an artist in this sense serves a purpose in many cases. I think you can think of it as a fine line where once you cross it and 'own' this pretentiousness 100% and create great art it sort of begins to 'work'. Or in other words, when did Prince really become Prince? Was he always that artist? Or was there some point at which he made the choice to dress differently and where it was purely pretentious and self absorbed until it was... fully internalized, for lack of better wording, at which point it just was a state of being?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
The only important thing is, instead of worrying about labels and attention, the best course of action is to be as true to one's self as possible and try not to compromise at the pursuit of one's craft or discipline, and the rest will take care of itself.
I agree.
Old 15th January 2017
  #317
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Or in other words, when did Prince really become Prince?
I'd say when he started posing in thong underwear..so that'd be Dirty Mind, circa 1980...

I mean his first two albums, For You and Prince, while hints at his genius and various predilections, the freak in him for everybody to see in full glory appeared on Dirty Mind, and firmly established a year later, 1981 on Controversy.
Old 15th January 2017
  #318
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12tone View Post
I'd say when he started posing in thong underwear..so that'd be Dirty Mind, circa 1980...

I mean his first two albums, For You and Prince, while hints at his genius and various predilections, the freak in him for everybody to see in full glory appeared on Dirty Mind, and firmly established a year later, 1981 on Controversy.
Unless he was just being pretentious and not at all just revealing the inner freak that was always there.... we don't know, correct?....
Old 15th January 2017
  #319
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Unless he was just being pretentious and not at all just revealing the inner freak that was always there.... we don't know, correct?....
I'm just talking national public perception. No doubt locally people knew about his freakishness even before Dirty mind, I'm pretty sure of that.

I think Dirty Mind and Controversy planted a seed that allowed his public perception of an 'artist' to foment, in that it made him very distinctive and unique, against the grain if you will.
Old 16th January 2017
  #320
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
Sure Eno is an "Artist" but here it get's complicated.

If Eno hires me in to play drums on a track and I play like a perfect, squeaky clean studio musician that might as well of been Slate Digital Samples programmed .... am I an "Artist" or just a jobbing musician an "artist" small "a"

But if Eno, hired me in and I was eccentric as heck in my approach and had a unique set of drums, tuned in a unique way, and I played in a unique way and made unique other worldly sounds when I played that everyone immediately could identify as being "thehightenor" then would I be called an "Artist" Yes I think I would be.

To me the "Artist" always begins with a capital A an "Artist"

Some are an "artist" the unique and gifted are an "Artist" - it takes something very special to earn the capital "A" in my view of the arts.

I appreciate other peoples definition is completely different.

By the way if you did hire me to play drums on your track I'm afraid you get the former description above not the latter :-)
I still don't see what difference it makes, this splitting of hairs of what someone might call you, and the subjectivity of it all.

Bowie is an artist like thousands of people you've never heard of are, too. They "create", they are "eccentric", they are "unique". Big deal.

What sets Bowie apart is one, he's really famous and successful, (as most everyone that people reference in these threads usually are), and he's generally considered really good. But probably a ton of people don't think he is.

Calling him an "Artist" with a capitol A is like calling a legendary basketball player a Basketball Player, or a Baller...it's just slang really, and all subjective, except the fame and accomplishments and sales and things like that which are facts.
Old 16th January 2017
  #321
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post

The sense in which there is a difference is similar to the sense in which there is a difference between a car commercial and a film by, say, Bergman. The director of the former is still a director, still a creator, still creating something whose form is compatible to those of works of art (i.e. the art form is the moving image+sound), etc, but is doing it purely for the purpose of making money. The latter has all the same attributes with the exception of aiming for the creation of actual art. If you don't like Bergman as an example you can pick someone else.

Either way I think the distinction is clear to a lot of artists and craftsmen.
That distinction is all well and good, but it still doesn't mean much, because the person who did the work for hire could be fantastically talented, and the person aiming for the creation of "actual art" could be a complete dolt.

All sorts of great composers/musicians do works for hire and money, and all sorts of goofs do things for the sake of it.
Old 16th January 2017
  #322
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
That distinction is all well and good, but it still doesn't mean much, because the person who did the work for hire could be fantastically talented, and the person aiming for the creation of "actual art" could be a complete dolt.

All sorts of great composers/musicians do works for hire and money, and all sorts of goofs do things for the sake of it.
So? I don't think I ever said that artists were inherently "better" or more talented or whatever....
Old 16th January 2017
  #323
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Not really though. Nobody here is not accepting "beauty of creativity, in all it's forms" as far as I can see. Seems like some people are just completely missing the point(s)...
You yourself said it, "As far as I can see". or want to.
Old 16th January 2017
  #324
Lives for gear
 
AfterViewer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
You yourself said it, "As far as I can see". or want to.
Or not see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50
Old 16th January 2017
  #325
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
This just brings us back to the original question and to the other topic. I will maintain the view that to a lot of craftsmen and artists (not the same thing) in the field of "the arts" there is a difference between a sort of "generic" craftsman, which could loosely be called an 'artist' simply because the person works as a craftsman in the field of the arts and creates works that can be classified as belonging to an 'art form', and on the other hand "artists".

The sense in which there is a difference is similar to the sense in which there is a difference between a car commercial and a film by, say, Bergman. The director of the former is still a director, still a creator, still creating something whose form is compatible to those of works of art (i.e. the art form is the moving image+sound), etc, but is doing it purely for the purpose of making money. The latter has all the same attributes with the exception of aiming for the creation of actual art. If you don't like Bergman as an example you can pick someone else.

Either way I think the distinction is clear to a lot of artists and craftsmen.
Craftsmen??? Money??? Film or Advert, still creative???
You have a bloated opinion of the title ' Artist'.
It is a normal function in life to human beings in one way or another, not every time they fart or parrot someone else. But if talent, of some art, is only acceptable when it has passed your litmus test, then it is you who ought to get off his self appointed soap box.
Old 16th January 2017
  #326
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
So? I don't think I ever said that artists were inherently "better" or more talented or whatever....
But that's the impression one gives when one compares a car commercial to a famous director.

Like I said, the distinction doesn't mean much, and can be really misleading, (if the idea is to communicate clearly), and it still just comes down to what people like or don't like, or however they want to label people and their work.

Like I said, there are tons of examples of works for hire or "craftsmen" that created what most people would call art, and those people are generally considered great artists. Conversely, someone could attempt to create art under the arbitrary "rules", and the world may not even consider it anything let alone "Art" with a capitol A.
Old 16th January 2017
  #327
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Craftsmen??? Money??? Film or Advert, still creative???
Just because you're creating something doesn't mean you're creating "art". That's the point I'm making.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
You have a bloated opinion of the title ' Artist'.
No I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
if talent, of some art, is only acceptable when it has passed your litmus test, then it is you who ought to get off his self appointed soap box.
Would you be so kind as to quote me even using the word "acceptable" in this thread? Could you do that please? No?

Strawman much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
You yourself said it, "As far as I can see". or want to.
Rather than being coy, which isn't nearly as fun as it may seem, why don't you quote people here not expressing their acceptance of the beauty of creativity?

You'll probably nearly double the length of the thread doing so, because just because people aren't confessing their acceptance level of the beauty of art doesn't mean they don't accept the beauty of art.
Old 16th January 2017
  #328
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
But that's the impression one gives when one compares a car commercial to a famous director.
If you want to argue that a car commercial by default is a piece of art then go ahead. I will disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Like I said, the distinction doesn't mean much, and can be really misleading, (if the idea is to communicate clearly), and it still just comes down to what people like or don't like, or however they want to label people and their work.
I get the feeling that some people just want to not have this conversation on a particular level. It's as if it has to be a pretty 'pedestrian' conversation where any word can take on virtually any meaning, because if we start defining words too much - even when they pertain to our own community's activities and are seen only by us - it becomes too sensitive, and we can't have that.

So everything is art, and everyone is an artist, and every art form and genre requires the same amount of skill, and there's no difference between the design of a Colgate box and a Monet, and everyone is a special snowflake worthy of love and admiration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhamilton View Post
Like I said, there are tons of examples of works for hire or "craftsmen" that created what most people would call art, and those people are generally considered great artists. Conversely, someone could attempt to create art under the arbitrary "rules", and the world may not even consider it anything let alone "Art" with a capitol A.
That's right. We can have a conversation about this using our intellect and experience as a community that hopefully mostly specialize in the field of the liberal arts, or we can have a completely pedestrian conversation about it and talk about what Joe the plumber thinks is art.
Old 16th January 2017
  #329
Gear Addict
[QUOTE=mattiasnyc;12379053]Just because you're creating something doesn't mean you're creating "art". That's the point I'm making.



As I said, you have a bloated idea of the title 'Artist'.
I don't care if others, or you, think that their opinion matters, but it is evident that any creativity is relished by whoever wishes to accept that communication,
especially when the quality of the art is commonly moving.
Nobody ever said that every creative act should be classified as genius, did they?
Old 16th January 2017
  #330
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
Just because you're creating something doesn't mean you're creating "art". That's the point I'm making.


As I said, you have a bloated idea of the title 'Artist'.
No I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTW View Post
Nobody ever said that every creative act should be classified as genius, did they?
Is that what I said somebody said? Is that what I said somebody didn't say, or that nobody said?

Where did I speak of "genius"?

You just keep adding all these words I've never used and then try to shoot down fictional arguments I never made using them.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump