why anti-art? (slightly ot ranrish)

[Altin]

Mallus: I honestly find the sort of criticism you are leveling to be no more effective than suggesting 'All the entertainment of the kids these days is junk. Back in my day, we had real artists'. It seems to me to be that same Victorian conservatism mangled into its latest elitist form.

One could well make an argument that the rigid delineation between elite and popular art is a relatively new phenomenon in western cultural development and it could, in fact, be argued to have resulted in weaker artwork on the whole. This is roughly to say that both Joyce's Ulyseus and any given Steven King novel are flawed in certain ways by their alienation from each other. Reading Ulyseus is a pain in the rear because it is frustratingly private and 'deep' but once you have gotten through the 'learning curve' there is a lot to be had out of it whereas King is very readable but there is not a whole lot to be had from his work in terms of multiple readings or complex intertwined meanings. On the other hand, if one combines the attractiveness of King with the complexity of Joyce one ends up with someone like Shakespeare who again is possibly a much better writer than either of the other two precisely because of this. Of course, one could equally well argue that the specialisaton of art is a good thing.

I don't think that the functional purpose of art, if indeed it has a functional purpose, is necessarily to elevate the human spirit - albeit that this is a noble and worthwhile goal of any pursuit. I certainly don't think that the noblest purpose of art is to "convey a little of what its like to experience the world from anothers point to view", and in fact I consider this a vain and conceited goal of art. I detest the modernist movement to judge literature on the basis of how it tricks someone into believing that they suddenly can sympathize with how it must have felt to have been X in Y situation - especially if X is some ethnic minority and Y is a situation of oppression. Doesn't the reader realize that even the most honest expression of art is artifice? Doesn't the viewer realize that the only way to hook the reader is to appear truer than the truth?

Above, you're possibly looking for the phrase 'Postmodernist movement' as modernism is a whole 'nother can of beans. I quite agree that the whole politically-correct movement which we're now enduring is not doing anybody any favours but I think it is little rash to deny the ability of art to convery truth of any kind (even a personal truth) simply because it can be used to make something which isn't appear true. In any case, the statement that 'the only way to hook the reader is to appear truer than the truth' is also somewhat misleading, especially given the reluctance of 20th century works to offer any explicit truth and their frequent use of irony to undermine just this appearance.

Do I think that Stephen King is the greatest word smith of our age? No, but neither do I snear at his works because I don't find them literary, and I find Stephen King's works more honest than the fashionably ironic works of say Kurt Vonnegut - no matter how much talent Kurt clearly has.

You are being a little harsh on Mr. Vonnegut; certainly he is fashionable and 'literary' but I don't think the label 'dishonest' would hold up to a close textual analysis of his work.

Here I was trying to entertain and maybe in the process convey some specific truth I think I have discovered and instead of understanding what I said, he's off relating it to something in his childhood growing up in Chicago. I'm glad for him, but I never even gave a moment's thought to Chicago when I wrote the book."

I think a lot of writers could empathise with this but there remains the fact that the falibility of communication is one of the problems which defines art. Personal meanings are not what an artist is after but they are undeinably present in any reading and in fact will tend to interfere with what you are trying to actually say. This happens in any form of communication (though it is less obvious when one is just talking or what have you) and by no means disqualifies art from being a communicative medium though it does condemn it to being an imprefect or even failed one (the work of Samuel Beckett is a wonderfull exploration of the imperfections of artistic medium and present an interesting 'aesthetic of failure' as a way of dealing with these.)

I don't think that the 'sorry state of Western/American/Popular/Republican/insert your favorite politically correct bugaboo' is directly related to the fact that money is involved or that it is played down to the lowest common demoninator. I think we are on safer ground attributing it to Sturgeon's Law, even if Sturgeon was largely full of crap.

As I say above, an argument could be made that there has been a change in the way we think about creative endevour and that art (however you wish to define that term) has suffered and is suffering because of that. There is also the fact that making art is not quite the same thing as baking bread. This is not to say it is a better or worse thing or an easier or harder thing but it is certainly not quite the same and in an enviroment where it is treated as if it were (for there is no doubt that your opinion is that dominant in our society) there are bound to be difficulties.

Also, some of the things that are problematic about art are problematic across the board, not just in instances where talent is lacking. In other words, if the problems inherent in art are caused solely by people being crap at churning it out then everybody is crap, not just the 90 %.

Yours,
Altin

 

[alsih2o]

I think certification is a necessary annoyance in day-to-day life. It's a sort of social short-hand that signifies that you're fully trained and reliably skilled at what it is that you do... whatever that may be.

being uncertified my self i feel the need to point out that traditionally art has been taught thru apprenticeships (i did 3) and those leave you completely uncertified. so art fits funny into this part of the debate.

i have been doing ceramics since 4 (mom found out it was cheaper to take me to class than to hire a babysitter) i have 8 years of college, no degree and the 3 previously mentioned apprecticeships.

so i tend to fall outsoide the "certification is meaningful" camp, especially looking at my favoprite artists past and present, and the fact that many of them lack an institutions stamp of approval

 

[Mallus]

Oh wait I finally found the master race its the artist.

Hey there Shard. I don't mean to be rude, but that's just cheap. Responding to what you feel is wrongheadedness with more wrongheadedness doesn't get us anywhere...

 

[Mallus]

Altin posted an interesting response to this already, but I'm now inspired by some good indie rock and several glasses of Maker's Mark, so I'll attempt to comment....

I honestly find the sort of criticism you are leveling to be no more effective than suggesting 'All the entertainment of the kids these days is junk. Back in my day, we had real artists'. It seems to me to be that same Victorian conservatism mangled into its latest elitist form.

That's not what I meant to convey {famous last words, eh?}. I certainly wasn't trying to romanticize the works some mythic past --which was a tired idea by the time of the Roman empire. There's a great quote, "Where are the snows of yesterday?" by a Roman author whose name escapes me now. I believe there is plenty of vital art being made today. I took you to be making an argument against personal expression in art, one in favor of a set of artistic representations that meant something to the greatest number of people. That is, an inherently false amalgam of popularly heald views in place of one individual's vision. It almost sounds as if your arguing for a kind of Communist state art. Denial of individual experience in favor of the collective view.[/B][/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that a cute puppy is a banal work?

Not neccessarily. I'm suggesting that cute pictures of puppies usually --thought not neccessarily-- amount to a cynical attempt be an artist to provoke a response from an audience. A cheap but effective technique. Awwww, puppy. The equivalent of loading food down with salt or sugar. Or putting an attractive woman or child in jeopardy in a Lifetime made-for-tv-movie. The paradox is we all understand that art is manipulative --we ask for it, that art demand a response-- but we {usually} bristle at art that does so in such an overt manner. Its also that art which asks so singular a response is just dull. I want from art a response more complex, more interesting than what I get when the doctor whacks my knee with that little hammer....

And also, purpose matters. No subject is inherently banal, just the use its put to. Look at Andy Warhol...

Is the implicit thought behind this the suggestion that you are somehow being deep if you don't paint cute puppies and instead paint dead bodies and other cynical things

Not at all. Both the hypothetical cute puppies and the hypothetical dead bodies are on equal footing with me. Cheap, uninteresting statements. Like saying "It sure is hot" on a 95 degree day... I'm arguing for art rooted in ambiguity, a multiplicity of interpretations. Not because its "deeper" or because I'm a raging elitist snob, but because its more accurate, a better representation of actually human experience, a better representational strategy.

More to the point, am I deeper if I try to encourage my audience to have more than one reaction to a dead body, than it has to a cute puppy?

OK, now we are talking about my assumptions. Yes. You're a better artist if you encourage, or at least allow for, multiple interpretations of a given work. This isn't any kind of idealism, its pragmaticism. People don't usually operate as a series of binary states: its rare that you can reduce human response to either/or. Thus any attempt to accurately express/model/represent human experience is going to reflect this. Anything else is myth-making or propaganda...

I disagree with your assumptions.

Sure. But let me try and state them clearly...

I don't think that the functional purpose of art, if indeed it has a functional purpose, is necessarily to elevate the human spirit - albeit that this is a noble and worthwhile goal of any pursuit. I certainly don't think that the noblest purpose of art is to "convey a little of what its like to experience the world from anothers point to view", and in fact I consider this a vain and conceited goal of art.

Let me be clear. I think the fundemental purpose of art is to engage. I can't speak to ennobling acts or the elevation of the human spirt {people who know me can attest to this}. But if art isn't about showing me part of another individuals conscience, what's left? Why is seeing/hearing/reading from another's point of view an act of vanity? What's the alternative? Again, you seem to be doing Lenin proud; placing the values/experience of some hypothetical collective ahead of the individual.

I detest the modernist movement to judge literature on the basis of how it tricks someone into believing that they suddenly can sympathize with how it must have felt to have been X in Y situation - especially if X is some ethnic minority and Y is a situation of oppression.

You're adding a political dimension here that has nothing to do with this subject. Firstly, what you're describing isn't Modernism.
Secondly, it isn't even properly Postmoderism --which is largely a critique of "totalizing master narratives", a critique of power structures as applied to cultural meanings, argghh, head hurts, anyway... If you're railing against "the art of inclusion", against judging works according to who made them or their message, rather than their aesthetic merit, I'm with you 100%. Understand though, for a long time works of art where judged by what class/race/gender of person created them. And if you belonged to the wrong group, your work was not considered art. Ask Jackson Pollock's wife...

Doesn't the reader realize that even the most honest expression of art is artifice?

I'm not sure how you mean this, but its a great line. Art is always representation, never the thing itself. Naturalism or realism are always just styles...

Do I think that Stephen King is the greatest word smith of our age? No, but neither do I snear at his works because I don't find them literary, and I find Stephen King's works more honest than the fashionably ironic works of say Kurt Vonnegat - no matter how much talent Kurt clearly has.

Look, I like popular art. Sandler makes me laugh and King is really underated. In a way, King is braver than a lot of more literary authors. Supernatural horror aside, King takes up the challenge of writing about Americans living in the places they actually live now. His books don't take place during the Civil War {I'm thinking Frazier's Cold Mountain} or during some symbolic nightmare of the Old West {I thinking Cormac McCarthy} or some zone of arty paranoia {hello Don Dellilo and Thomas Pynchon}. He writes pretty honestly about the world around him --monsters notwithstaning-- and that's always been an admirable goal.

And Vonnegut is hardly fashionable anymore. Besides, the thing to take away from Vonnegut isn't his faux-child diction or ceaseless irony; its his compassion, his humanism. These traits have been trendy in Western Lit. since the Enlightenment. Have you read his Easter sermon? Its beautiful...

Here I was trying to entertain and maybe in the process convey some specific truth I think I have discovered and instead of understanding what I said, he's off relating it to something in his childhood growing up in Chicago.

This I just don't understand. Initially you claim you're advocating art that everyone can easily identify with, but here you indicate that you want a perspective reader to come away with your unique experience? Why in God'd name would any artist object to someone having a reponse to their work? You seem to operating from a paradigm that reduces art to the level of stereo instructions: a linear tramsmission of information with one correct desired result. When I hear a Patsy Cline song I feel heartbreaking sadness, but I'm fairly certain it's not the same heartbreaking sadness she felt...

Lord, save me from the reveiwer that thinks because I grew up in the south, my alien race is an allogory for the plight of African Americans, or the struggle of civil rights when what I mean is that people - just people - are often cruel to each other without meaning to be.

Lord, grant me that I have published work to be misread...

Look, art gets interpreted. It ain't telepathy. Its all about what meaning gets created when the viewer encounters the work.

I want everyone to sit down and get the same thing out of the story

That's crazy. It isn't a matter of clarity or skill, it has to do with different people having different experiences/knowledge which influence their perception {its about creating meaning. Different people have different materials from which to assemble it}. For example, how could a person who never lost a spouse to cancer have exactly the same response to a play about losing a spouse to cancer than someone who did?

I don't think that the 'sorry state of Western/American/Popular/Republican/insert your favorite politically correct bugaboo' is directly related to the fact that money is involved or that it is played down to the lowest common demoninator.

Let's not bash straw men. I'm hardly an advocate of what gets labelled PC.

Good night.

 

[Celebrim]

Altin: In many ways you hit upon exactly my thoughts, though it seems clear that you have spent some more time studing these things in a formal way than I have. If you haven't already guessed, I do think Western Art would improve if we stopped making elitist distinctions. I find Shakespeare the better model, for I do not believe that the masses are as stupid as they are believed to be, nor do I believe that art is like fashion - it shouldn't change just to distinguish you from 'the rabble'.

Post-modern, neo-modern, neo-post-modern, post-post-modern, tragical-comedic-neo-post-post-modern: it is all the same to me I'm afraid. I'll take your word for it.

I am being harsh on Mr. Vonnegut. While the label dishonest most certainly doesn't hold up to an academician's 'close textual analysis' - it holds up to every other kind of analysis. I have the feeling that the critics can't recognize when they are being played. One gets the impression reading reading Stephen King that he doesn't write a single thing to impress the critics. Mr. King doesn't appear to have any sort of conscious 'style', and instead writes whatever comes readily into his mind. Mr. King appears to put all his thoughts down on paper in a white heat of inspiration without regard to what will be well recieved by a literary critic. Mr King appears to write to please himself, to please his daughters, to please his audience, and to make money. There may not be great depth, but there is no affectation in his writing. And, if there _is_ conscious style, by achieving the appearance of honesty, then he is a far better writer than either of us have so far given him credit for.

Mr. Vonnegut's works on the other hand are so stylized that if he is writing from his heart, it is quite impossible to tell, because the result is identical to the results of affectation either way. Mr. Vonnegut writes as if every paragraph was intended to inspire a paragraph in some graduate student's thesis. He never seems to fail to try couple a wry beginning to a paragraph with a fashionably ironic closure. He panders to the critic, the way a teen movie panders to the purient. He ends up writing not so much a story, or even a political satire, or even a stand-up comedy reutine, but an outline of a critical essay accompanied with humorous annotations. After the 15th such ironical twist of the English language in a row, one is quite already tired, and you just want to say, "Kurt, stop hamming it up and just tell your story." The actor who over acts is not held in high regard, but the writer who overwrites is not held to the same standard.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Just how does the average person see things? I'm sure I have no idea.

The average person sees things the way most people do, in that they have not trained themselves to stop and notice things like angles, perspectives, curvatures, light placements, etc. even in normal everyday life. This does not make them inferior, it makes it different. I can look at a pretty girl and take a very good guess at what she will look like when she's an old woman, because I've learned how to understand the way the body works in that manner, the way the muscles and skin will alter with age and gravity, blah blah. On the other hand, a doctor can look at an x-ray and see things I cannot see, a car mechanic can look at an enguine and see things that I cannot see. It's not magic.

Effort has nothing to do with the value of anything -- except insofar as things that are difficult to make are going to naturally be in shorter supply. Under normal circumstances those things are going to be more valuable than other, more common things.

Oh? Do you've never had a charge on any bills that read "Labor"? Because, most any car mechanic will gouge you left and right, and mark it "Labor". So will a plumber, an electrician, etc. It's not some kind of magic wand that artists want to wave and say "we're special, it's not easy".

geez haven't you been paying attention the average person can only see the surface of things blah, blah. Heck even using the term average person in this context is insanely rude, moronic, elitist crap. Oh wait I finally found the master race its the artist.

The use of the term 'average person' is exactly in this context. 'average' meaning, in this context, those who are not artists. If this were a Computer Programmers' thread, I would fully expect to be seen as "an average person". Again, this is normal practice in conversation, I don't understand the effort to find some form of insult, it's very unusual for this forum, but in my opinion that one was a stretch.

And, no offense is meant by anything herein, if it needs saying.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Re: Wolv0rine

Quality and Time

It should be obvious that I know little about the basics of "image crafting" (illustration, painting, 3D rendering, mixed media et al). I accept that. At the same time, however, I think what I was trying to get at wasn't that I expected you to work 9 to 5 and Monday to Friday, but rather that you keep an accurate account of how long it really takes you to create something. I hold true to the formula I presented: [Materials + (Wage * Time)]. I think the problem is trying to deduce what a proper wage-rate would be and how to accurately gauge the time it took to create an image.

That's the kicker.

For myself, this has always been a very hard thing do deal with. When I try to put a price on my art, my mind boggles. "How much do you want for it?" is a question that can send me into mental fits of confusion, because I never had any clue. My best answer was always "What do you think is fair?". My father always said it's because, since I can do it, it's hard for me to understand that others who don't have the same skill are willing to pay for it, and I think that's very true. I always feel just a little guilty about getting money for a piece, even if I've busted my hump over it. That's one of the things I've loved so far about the freelancing deal in the RPG industry; I contact someone and let them know I exist, if they like my art they tell ME what they can pay for my work/time. I don't have to pull a number out of the air, I have a basis to work with. Otherwise, if I really had to figure out a way to do the [Materials + (Wage * Time)] thing, I'd be pooched, if only because I almost never sit down and finish a piece the same day I start it. I do a sketch, maybe a few, if the sketch turns out right, I slide it under tracing paper and start working on the first draft of the final, clean, ready to turn in piece. At that point, I might have a few lines, come back to it in a day or two, add some more, etc. Ideally, I'm doing this process with a handful or more of pics at a time, of course, so it's not all down-time (which also allows me to keep from getting bored with any one piece, a time-honored writer's block technique -- keep multiple projects going, so you don't burn out on any given one). So, how long did I work on Piece X? I'd never be able to tell you.

The Certification Debate

I think certification is a necessary annoyance in day-to-day life. It's a sort of social short-hand that signifies that you're fully trained and reliably skilled at what it is that you do... whatever that may be. While I agree that natural ability does exist, and that people should be able to get paid for something they taught themselves to do... It's lamentable that these people fall through the cracks of certification, but at the same time, it seems that it's doing much more good that bad.

This is true, really, and it's one of the things I truely hate about our society (which, I think, knows no national boundaries in this respect). I missed out on college right after I graduated high school, and I've never been able to manage to go since, although I've thought about it many times. In so many cases, this bars me from a lot of things, or at least from a better wage. In most cases this is alright, because I don't know anything about those jobs, but with art it's so much different, because there are, really, no set things you can be taught about being an artist, save for some very simple techniques and rules (such as 'what is perspective?' or 'light casts shadows'). I did actually learn one thing from my old high school art teacher (a crusty old woman, but I liked her). She told the class the first time I was in her classroom (paraphrased from memory) "In this class I will teach you to see. Most people look, an artist Sees." This goes back to an earlier post that Barsoomcore replied to about 'how do average people see things', this is what I meant when I said that. But otherwise, an artist has to learn by doing it, by forming an understanding. There's no code to learn, no step-by-step to be taught. And so the college degree becomes less and less practically useful. I'm not saying it's useless, but I've done fairly well without one. But you are correct, most of society refuses to think that way.
I was actually chuckling to myself when I was replying to your post earlier at this point, thinking how real life does mirror the d20 system in that way. Drop-out? 0-level nobody. High School Graduate? No higher than 5th level, next. College Grad? 10th level cap. Got a certified degree? Well now we're talking levels.

On the contrary, I found your post to be quite coherent. Also, I like the direction you and others are going into defining someone who creates... "Artist" does have certain connotations now, it seems. Is there a difference between someone that defines himself as an Illustrator as opposed to an Artist? I would be inclined to think so, and that difference would be fundamental.

(Thank you, by the way)
I've actually been surprised by that. I started making the distinction between "Artist" and "Illustrator" toward myself before I'd ever had a conversation involving another artist, it was a difference I came up with a vacuum, and it's just mind-blowing that so many others make the same distinction, I think that's grand. In my own mind, it was the difference between "high-brow, nose-in-the-air Arteest of "Fine Art", and what I do -- illustrate. A character portrait is an artistic endeavor, and can be as beautiful as any other art, but there's no posh snobs standing around gazing at it as it hangs on a wall trying to interpret the illustrators emotions and the social message he's trying to convey; instead someone looks at it, maybe says "Wow, that pic is SOOOO WICKED!", and I find that so much more fulfilling.

 

[Fiery Todd]

There is a distinct difference between Illustration and Fine Art. Ilustration is work-for-hire, and although illustration is basically fine art in many cases, it's still work-for-hire. Another words, an art director has determined that he needs a piece of art for his product and he is going to contract for it. Fine Artists make art and hope that someone buys it. Illustrators are business men/women as much as they are artists.

There are many avenues for an illustrator to make money, but ultimately, it is in advertising where the big dollars can be earned. Advertising is primarily a visual medium, and thus, excellent illustrators/designers/photographers are at a premium. The cover to a product is the most important piece of art of that product, and it is what likely sells it. It's the product's biggest ad. So, if the product's success depends on its cover, than the artist who is commissioned to do the cover can, quite easily, and with clear conscious, charge what he/she wishes. It all depends on the kind of cards the art director has to play. Charging for services rendered in the art world is no different than anywhere else.

Illustrators' fees are based on many factors that have been already mentioned, but there's more to this story. Illustrator's, as a rule of thumb, charge anywhere from $10 to $80 an hour for any given job. This is modified by things like complexity, colour or B&W, what the illustration is for, how many people are going to be seeing the illustration, where the illustration is going, how often is the image going to be used, is the image directly related to the company's attempt at branding, and just how determined is the art director to acquire his/her specific style? This process is no different than when a plumber comes into your home and figures out a quote (copper vs. brass, are we going to have to knock out a wall, how many men am I going to need for the job...). It's up to the artist to price themselves effectively, getting the most for what they're worth, vs. the art director's budget and need for their services.

Illustrators provide a specialized, professional service for which they have trained for many years. There is a need for them. Just go to your local book store and look around. There are many illustrators who make a fine living at what they do, but this percentage is very small. Most illustrators usually have part time jobs (usually art related), and manage to get work here and there. There is a lot of work out there, but the competition is pretty fierce. Most illustrators I have known have a strong couple of years and then decline as new styles and faces take over. This is the natural order of things. In the art world, only the strong and highly talented survive. Networking, who you know, luck, etc. play a part too, but that’s not nearly as romantic.

The business world of Fine Art is very similar to the music industry. You have your classic art and you have your pop art. There are work-for-hire fine artists (portrait artists for example), but generally, fine artists lead a complicated existence of ideology, truth, and innovation - Much like a garage band before they hit it big (Nirvana be praised). Fine artists are discovered (usually from a “scene”), showcased, and then go on tour. Fine artists have agents, yes they do, who continually attempt to drum up business.

Fine artists, either successful or not so successful charge what they charge. If nobody buys, so be it. That’s for them to address. The price of art is all in the mind. Accusing an artist of over charging for a service you may undervalue is counter productive. People have no problem dropping $120 on a Tommy shirt even though it cost Tommy about $4 to make. They even know this. But they still buy it anyway because the image that Tommy conveys is something they want. This, of course, is capitalism at its best and it also captures the same philosophy of big time art collecting. Paintings are bought and sold at such astronomical prices because the people who are buying and selling them say so. The local artist charges what they charge because they say so.

I like art a lot.

And I have a special appreciation for ceramic art. My folks have been in the business for some 30 years now.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I will throw in my two cents, since I cannot help but do otherwise a great deal of time.

Many artists like to game or at least associate with gamers, I have had my fair share of artist friends and associates. Art is no easy undertaking. Even pictures that look very simply can take some time if the artist colors them.

I still remember when I was planning to start a comic book company. I initially was planning to work with a friend, but the person wanted to do a strange duck character I didn't feel like financing. Not that it wouldn't sell, but I just wasn't into the character. I had to find a new artist.

Well, comic book artists do not come cheap. I contacted a professional art agent (yes, quite a few artists have agents), the lowest price I could find was $5,000 for a color cover, black and white interior, 32-page comic book. That was not going to work for me because I was a start up.

I had to take the alternative route of finding a good art student with a similar dream to mine. I called an art school and started inverviewing students. Even students were charging $50 or $100 dollars for a few pages of art.

Doc's price is very fair in my opinion. Art, illustration, inking, , digital coloring, or color separation are all expensive and time consuming activities. The comic book companies usually emply different people to draw the book in pencil, outline the drawing in ink, color the book, write in the words and bubbles, and prepare the drawing for print. Very time intensive.

One fully colored drawing for $50 is well worth the price. If you don't have the money, fine, but to imply that it is not worth it is showing a very poor knowledge of the price of art or illustration, whatever you prefer to call it.

 

[Silver Griffon]

Excellent replies, Thank You!

Excellent! Some people noticed from the way that I began and ended my post that it was not entirely serious. But this topic is serious. Here are some replies that should help you see what I was trying to do.

Originally posted by Henry

I have to disagree here. Having a solid and reliable character is the most valuable quality. People can learn to a degree to express their innate repressed creativity, though some have it more than others, and I do not dsipute its value as a trait. However, personal strength of character cannot ever be taught, because it is attained over the course of your life and experience, and if some argue it can, even then only after years of personal re-training. Most business courses have this same concept, and I have to agree.

I agree with your sentiment about character here completely. I was going for an emotional response with my previous post, as I hope will become clear.

Originally posted by Celebrim

This is precisely the sort of elitism based on ignorance that provokes me to rant such.

I have worked as a janitor, a salesman, a cashier, a draftsman, as a fast food employee, a engineer, a computer programmer, a truck driver, a check encoder, in a warehouse, in a diesal mechanics shop, a clerk, a secretary, a receptionist, as an agent for the government, in data entry, and half a dozen other things I've probably forgotten. I have an unfulfilled desire to put some words down on paper and sell them. I think maybe I have some talent for that, or at least people who have read my words keep encouraging me to try to publish them. I can say with some conviction that I've never worked a job that doesn't require some skills in order to excell at. Sometimes I had those skills. Sometimes I didn't. But I sure as heck don't look down on a good plumber, or a good mechanic, or a good doctor(!), or a good teacher, or a good engineer, or a good manager, or a good truck driver(!!) and go 'Any bum could do that.'

I never said that "anyone" could become GOOD at these professions. Someone who is good at their job should always be lauded regardless of what that job may be. To put my strongly worded ravings in context, though remember that this thread is about the percieved value of art and what people are willing to pay for an artist's work. My intention here was twofold. First, I am pointing out that people are more than willing to pay as much as hundreds of dollars an hour to a doctor, lawyer, etc. even if they are NOT particularly good at their jobs. Even if they only meet the bare minimum required competency to work in their field. And most of the time, the minimum for any profession is pretty minimal. By contrast, even some REALLY GOOD artists have people constantly questioning the value of their work. And not everyone can be an artist. Some things you either have or you don't. Now, does that make an artist's work more valuable than someone elses? Maybe, maybe not. Many endeavors require traits that cannot be learned. Secondly, I wanted to get an emotional reaction. I wanted people who have worked in all these other jobs to feel what we are talking about. In short, I wanted to hear from someone like you. That "any bum could do that" attitude that you are talking about is exactly what artists face all the time. That is the problem.
By the way, I was an art major. Never finished the degree because I saw early on that it would probably never pay off no matter how good I was. It was a hard choice to give that up. Certainly a pessimistic attitude, but was I wrong? I don't know. I have been a salesman, carpenter, fry cook, and many others. I am currently an IT analyst. And every one of those jobs was important in their own way. I wouldn't trade the experience of working at any of them.

Originally posted by alsih20

while i find this sentiment flattering, i also do not agree. my experience has been that almost anything can be eleveated to an art form.

Yes. But again, many people seem to percieve that the work of the best artists is not worth as much as the work of even a mediocre "professional".

Originally posted by seasong

I know you were joking, but considering that the only places the joke was indicated were the very last paragraph (quoted above) and the post title (which only a few people look at), it wasn't very clear.

I know that I was opening myself up to slings and arrows, but it was worth it to participate in such a lively debate.

Originally posted by seasong

Um, Silver Griffon? Uh, I dunno how to tell you this... but.... well... your ignorance is showing. It's just... sticking right out there. Kinda embarassing, really. You might want to... tuck that away...

Honestly (and less flippantly) I have to figure that you've got little grasp of what's involved in many jobs. Or, if you do, you simply vastly undervalue the qualities necessary to do them.

Thanks. I wouldn't want to get that stepped on
I hope this post sheds a little light on my true motives. My previous post was intentionally over-the-top. It was meant to elicit strong reactions. It was meant to be evocative. That's what artists do.

I admit that this was an underhanded way to make a point and I sincerely apologize to all whose buttons I pushed. But when you got mad it was probably because you percieved an attack on the things that YOU do for a living. I made certain traits seem more important than others. Maybe more important than your own personal strengths. Emotions are hard to quantify. No amount of discussion can make you know what they feel like. But if your one of those people who took offense, than I know you understand. Artists pour their soul into their work, too. Telling them it isn't worth that much is like telling them their children are not as good as the other kids.

Whether someone is an artist, a doctor, or mechanic, think twice before you set a value on what they do. Would they really understand how much goes into what you do? Then maybe you don't know everything about what they do.