When is a musician an "artist"

[mrcreosote]

DISCLOSURE:  I don't believe actors and musicians should be elevated to artists status - reciting is not creating.  Before sound recording, musicians were used to reproduce music for people to hear.  No artistry here folks.

The word "artist" was hijacked from sculptors and painters. 

Are composers artists?  That is academic like saying they are human beings - the word composer already exists and in use.

But I will dray this line:  Reciting vs Performing:  When you recite (as a member of an orchestra), if you are told what to play, you definitely are not an artist.  If people come to see you play, especially if they play money, you are either a virtuoso OR a composer playing his own music which if we are going to use the word artist in the music work, then here is where you assign it.  Sparingly.

As far as the misuse of "artist," you will see a million times written that "Beethoven was a Great Composer" and not  "Beethoven was a Great Artist".

[themeandvariation]

You have defined Your 'line'.  I suppose labels can be useful. Personally, I imagine a dotted line in such contexts. Also, you might consider that 'artist' is used generically as well implying many disciplines, though perhaps this is something that you're not comfortable with. Which, of course, is fine.   

[Bob]

Technical mastery.  Understanding of history and the composer's intent.  Able to make their own interpretation of work that's in line with what the composer intended or the piece implies.  Being able to come up with more in that direction.

[klavieronin]

Don't forget, there was a time when sculptors and painters were also "told what to do", they were hired craftsmen. Does that mean they weren't artists? In any case, I think the term artist (in the sense it is used today) is a relatively new one and like the term "classical music" it can have both a broad and a specific definition.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't believe actors and musicians should be elevated to artists status

I think you are putting the status of "artist" into some exclusive unyielding, restrictive definition. Have you not heard of the term "performing arts"? You are confusing yourself I think unncesssarily to not see the line of separation between "visual arts" and "performing arts" AND also the strong correlation between the two (how one effects the creation of the other, and there countless of examples of this happening).

[ted]

Although the definition appears variable, as lostinidlewonder has pointed out, I tend to think a musician is an artist to the degree that his music is a medium of creation. Whether we like the end result is not relevant to this, as we all saw in the Sorabji thread. I would unhestitatingly call Sorabji an artist but those who perform his music, or anybody else’s music for that matter, are artists to a much lesser extent, once removed from the creative act, so to speak. For me it is about conceiving and expressing something new, something preferably but not necessarily, recognisably significant.

[mrcreosote]

Technical mastery.  Understanding of history and the composer's intent.  Able to make their own interpretation of work that's in line with what the composer intended or the piece implies.  Being able to come up with more in that direction.

This is a stretch but an art critic who is a master in their field, could look at a Picaso, know the history and intent, and render an interpretation of what the artist was saying.  Perhaps advancing the "knowledge base" with new views - modern thoughts about Jesus come to mind.  I would not consider a critic or archaeologist an artist. 

But what of the experts restoring the disintegrating frescos or the Renaissance?  They have to know the history and what the artist intended as far as paint, color, brush strokes.  Are these experts, technicians, or   But are they artists?  I'm going with NO, Alex.

[mrcreosote]

Don't forget, there was a time when sculptors and painters were also "told what to do", they were hired craftsmen. Does that mean they weren't artists? In any case, I think the term artist (in the sense it is used today) is a relatively new one and like the term "classical music" it can have both a broad and a specific definition.

Good point!

Thinking of David here, Michelangelo was the 3rd person to work on the statue and finish it.  I'm sure the commission did not include sketches of David for M to simply render in 3D.  Artists (and artisans) would get commissioned.

Music on the other hand is specifically written down with instructions how to play.  Also specifically written down are plays - Shakespeare comes to mind!

Thinking... a cook follows a recipe, however a "chef" makes his own creations and I'd have to go with Yes, a Chef can indeed be an artist.

I was looking at definitions and and found 1) "anyone who performs the creative arts" and 2) "one who is compelled to create (I really like this definition)." 

Children forced to play instruments are artists by Rule 1) and NOT artists by Rule 2).  I don't know if I'd call a painter painting, "performing" as required in Rule 1l) 

QUESTION:  Who is the Artist? - you must pick only one:   Horowitz or Rachmaninoff (as a composer, not performer).

[mrcreosote]

I think you are putting the status of "artist" into some exclusive unyielding, restrictive definition. Have you not heard of the term "performing arts"? You are confusing yourself I think unncesssarily to not see the line of separation between "visual arts" and "performing arts" AND also the strong correlation between the two (how one effects the creation of the other, and there countless of examples of this happening).

Interesting.  Performing and Visual Arts:  Where does the Composer lie? 

The definition of Performing is that the artist's, face, body, etc. are required for the performance - so that is not a Composer.  So the Composer is left with Visual Arts so that what..., his creation is the printed score - like a Rembrandt?

Horowitz always wanted to be a composer but became a pianist to put food on the table.  Didn't compose => didn't create.  Was forced to play piano for money.  At this point, H was definitely not an artist. (see Rules 1) and 2 above)   

[lostinidlewonder]

Performing and Visual Arts:  Where does the Composer lie? 

The composer choreographs what the performers must do and the medium for their art to be fully appreciated is in the perfoming arts. There is a strong connection between performing and visual arts, just as I can picture a beautiful painting in my mindseye and appreciate it so too can I hear an entire piece in my mindseye and enjoy the beauty, both are  experiences can be conjoured up in the mind and both can produce emotional/visual experiences.

The definition of Performing is that the artist's, face, body, etc. are required for the performance - so that is not a Composer.

The performers don't just all improvise and make up their performing arts though, they need directions and where do you think that comes from?  How else can the composer work if they are not thinking about how performers would possibly present their work? You wouldn't write an opera with notes outisde of the human vocal range.

So the Composer is left with Visual Arts so that what..., his creation is the printed score - like a Rembrandt?

Many composers wrote with particular images, poems, emotions, historic events etc etc in mind while they were creating their works. The music on its own is certainly a visual art, someone who understands its instructions will know exactly the powerful meaning that it has behind it all. Powerful poetry has the same effect but those who are unwilling or uninterested to actually understand the words don't see it as visual art but just a jumble of words. Listeners of a performance of a work can not only appreciate the sound but may indeed see images in their mindseye while experiencing the music, so then who is to say that music cannot be a visual art as well?

Horowitz always wanted to be a composer but became a pianist to put food on the table.  Didn't compose => didn't create.  Was forced to play piano for money.  At this point, H was definitely not an artist. (see Rules 1) and 2 above)   

It seems though that you don't understand no 1 enough to think that Horowitz was not an artist.

[mrcreosote]

The performers don't just all improvise and make up their performing arts though, they need directions and where do you think that comes from?  How else can the composer work if they are not thinking about how performers would possibly present their work? You wouldn't write an opera with notes outisde of the human vocal range.

I believe there was a sonata where Bee sustained a bass note for measures - the consensus was that he "heard" this in his mind being deaf.

Somewhere around the time of Chopin and Clara Schumann, pianists typically played with sheet music.  To play someone else's composition from memory was considered disrespectful, "Who does he think he is?  He didn't compose that piece."  At that time, those two cases would be a wide separation with regard to the use of Artists.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I have great disdain for narcissists which you might already suspect.  My problem with the widespread use of "artists" these days goes hand-in-hand with "everyone is special." 

[klavieronin]

I was looking at definitions and and found … one who is compelled to create (I really like this definition)."

I like that definition too, though I don't agree that performing musicians, or actors, can't be considered artists by that definition. Without musicians there is no music. Without actors there is no play (or film). In that sense they are an integral part of the work and a good performer can elevate a work of art to a level not conceived of by the composer/writer etc. Therefore I think the performers should be considered artists, provided the have that compulsion. And there's no reason to think that many performers aren't compelled to create. Is a father not a parent because he didn't give birth?

[mrcreosote]

I like that definition too, though I don't agree that performing musicians, or actors, can't be considered artists by that definition. Without musicians there is no music. Without actors there is no play (or film). In that sense they are an integral part of the work and a good performer can elevate a work of art to a level not conceived of by the composer/writer etc. Therefore I think the performers should be considered artists, provided the have that compulsion. And there's no reason to think that many performers aren't compelled to create. Is a father not a parent because he didn't give birth?

Alll good points (there is no wrong/right answer on this topic - it's one of definition/semantics/society.

I was thinking the least creative is the person who is a member of a symphony orchestra where all the notes are scored and the conductor instructs the musicians how to play the passages.  What is left to create?  In this case, the musician is simply an instrument operator which, although highly skilled, is merely completing a task.  A Journeyman Musician perhaps?  Or Studio Musician although some have been quite creative, but many not.

There are extremely talented, highly skilled people in all walks of life.  I forging a Samurai sword an art?

Friend's child is in the high school jazz band.  Their best piece by far at the Xmas concert was some Duke Ellington or such in a weird key, maybe Ab.  He said THE BAND HATED PLAYING THAT PIECE!  They killed it but they hated playing it. 

The word Prostitution comes to mind.  Selling out.  Going Commercial.  Are those that do Artists?  If you walk away from your calling as in Rule 2, NOT an artist.  Example, Ricky Skaggs moving to gospel because can't make money with Blue Grass - like they opened for Dixie Chicks.  How humiliating... How Horrifying...

[lostinidlewonder]

You seem to have read past all the comments which respond to your previous post. So I will disengage in this thread after this response since you seem to want to simply discuss on your own.

I believe there was a sonata where Bee sustained a bass note for measures - the consensus was that he "heard" this in his mind being deaf.

What is the relevance?

Somewhere around the time of Chopin and Clara Schumann, pianists typically played with sheet music.  To play someone else's composition from memory was considered disrespectful, "Who does he think he is?  He didn't compose that piece."  At that time, those two cases would be a wide separation with regard to the use of Artists.

What is the relevence of this to the topic of the thread though? Just because you memorize something vs sightreading that doesn't change the regards of a definition of "artists". Sure some people might think that but certainly mainstream ideologies would not.

FULL DISCLOSURE:  I have great disdain for narcissists which you might already suspect.

Nope this didn't cross my mind at all because I am not thinking about you personally but rather the ideas you are trying to present.

My problem with the widespread use of "artists" these days goes hand-in-hand with "everyone is special."

That is a cynical perspective though, you are welcome to that kind of thinking but it does cause a bit of bais.

[cuberdrift]

DISCLOSURE:  I don't believe actors and musicians should be elevated to artists status - reciting is not creating.  Before sound recording, musicians were used to reproduce music for people to hear.  No artistry here folks.

The word "artist" was hijacked from sculptors and painters. 

Are composers artists?  That is academic like saying they are human beings - the word composer already exists and in use.

But I will dray this line:  Reciting vs Performing:  When you recite (as a member of an orchestra), if you are told what to play, you definitely are not an artist.  If people come to see you play, especially if they play money, you are either a virtuoso OR a composer playing his own music which if we are going to use the word artist in the music work, then here is where you assign it.  Sparingly.

As far as the misuse of "artist," you will see a million times written that "Beethoven was a Great Composer" and not  "Beethoven was a Great Artist".

Personally I don't quite agree that a performer of a written work shouldn't be considered an artist, though I did entertain the idea for some time before.

I like to define art as anything intended by humans to influence the senses.

So when a performer practices a written work, he's using the best of his imagination to shape the piece in a way that it would influence the senses of his audiences in the way he thinks the composer intends to.

It might not exactly be THAT creative, but it's still an artistic endeavour imo.

[mrcreosote]

If there is no artistic interpretation but mere copying, I say not an artist:

Cover bands playing a cover note-perfect to the original band's recordings. 
Painters that paint copies both legitimate and forged. 

Musicians that can make a note perfect copy of a Horowitz performance? 

The above are no better than machines.

But what of a lecture by Richard Feynman? 





 

[brogers70]

I'd say an artist helps you look at life and the world in a way that is new for you. A realistic visual artist can get you to appreciate aspects of a landscape or an object you would not otherwise have paid attention to, an abstract visual artist can get you to look at colors or shapes in your visual experience in a new way. A musician can put you in touch with emotions you'd had trouble expressing, make you love life more, or fix your mind on complex interesting patterns. To me it does not matter much whether the musician is a composer, and improviser, or someone who brings someone else's compositions to life. Certainly you can fail artistically by giving a ho-hum rote performance rattling off the correct notes of a great piece, but you can also fail by writing a ho-hum composition, or doing a boring improvisation. And art is not a competition in any case.

[mrcreosote]

Here is a funny one:  Are Pro Wrestlers artists since their bouts are actually choreographed, a combination of "dance" and acting? 

[carloscap]

DEAR
The only thing that seems to me here is that there is a great "mix" of
concepts and names that the only thing they do (and I think that is the most important of all in short) in putting a "brake" on all the possibilities you have to express something and that I am very sure that if it is NOT art. brake is not art and I'm sure of that .....
It makes you measure until the last word you say and also cuts you off when you do
it does not give you freedom which is what art needs to be able to continue
There is a lot of prejudice here, that if I do this than if I do that, that if I give it this name or if I give it that one ...
The thing is much simpler than it seems; I like it I don't like it, it moves me, it doesn't move me and that's it. We must not give a score to anyone (nor does it correspond to us ...) or an immovable sign to anyone either, not even to ourselves ..... that way everything will be able to flow better !!!
That's my humble opinion
Carlos Guido
Song-Piano
www.carlosguido.com.ar

[chopinenthusiast]

Well, you are right in a sense. I believe when a piece is played, there is a lot more that just recitation occurring. Whenever playing a piece, your feelings and internal mental state are intertwined with your interpretation of the piece. In that sense it is similar to art; painting for example, and i'm no expert, is essentially following certain guidelines whilst expressing yourself. For example, whenever you paint a tree there is a certain set of rules you can follow, these rules might make your tree look more like a tree, but your tree will always be a little different. Music, in my opinion, is a performance art. It's still artistic because of how you choose to interpret the piece whilst still expressing yourself. Take anything i say with a grain of salt, i'm not an expert in painting nor music.