If someone were to ask me to describe myself, the first word to come out of my mouth would not be “artist.” Considering the fact that I am a theatre major, this might seem rather strange. But to me, it makes sense. The way I see it, there are many parts of me that make me an artist, but being an artist does not necessarily make me who I am. Being an artist is fulfilling. It allows me to take pleasure in the small things in life, and to appreciate every moment because our time on earth is finite. I cannot really explain how being an artist does this; it could be argued that any line of work or concentration can fulfill you. A surgeon might say that being able to save lives gives him or her the foresight to take nothing for granted. A teacher might say the same about shaping the young minds of tomorrow. I guess the best way I can explain how being an artist can fulfill you in a different way than any of these other professions is by highlighting the apparent distinction among them: when you are an artist, the work that you do is for yourself. The knowledge that you are doing what you love strictly because it fills your heart with joy is something that many people do not understand. In fact, most probably consider it selfish. Artists understand that they create their works of art (performances, paintings, sculptures, compositions, etc.) with the hope that they inspire or affect those who come to appreciate the art, but that the main goal in creating it is to please themselves. If Pablo Picasso completed every painting during his blue period and sold them all for thousands and thousands of dollars, but looked back on the whole experience and thought, “What a load of crap, those paintings were terrible,” he would not be fulfilled as an artist, no matter how much money he had made. 
The same goes for actors and singers. When I sing for an audience or perform in a play, if I am displeased with my performance, there is nothing anyone can say or do to convince me of my talent. This might make me sound like I am a hypercritical person, which actually is not untrue. But it works in the opposite direction as well – if I am proud of the work I have done, no matter how many people tell me they hated it, I will not be knocked down from my prideful pedestal. As a result, it could be said that artists are conceited or ignorant or just ridiculous. For some, this is probably accurate. But, for me in particular, this is the reason why being an artist is my essence, but it is not my self. I love it and I would be lost without it, but it does not define me. It reminds me everyday how precious life is. And for that, I will always be grateful.
The same goes for actors and singers. When I sing for an audience or perform in a play, if I am displeased with my performance, there is nothing anyone can say or do to convince me of my talent. This might make me sound like I am a hypercritical person, which actually is not untrue. But it works in the opposite direction as well – if I am proud of the work I have done, no matter how many people tell me they hated it, I will not be knocked down from my prideful pedestal. As a result, it could be said that artists are conceited or ignorant or just ridiculous. For some, this is probably accurate. But, for me in particular, this is the reason why being an artist is my essence, but it is not my self. I love it and I would be lost without it, but it does not define me. It reminds me everyday how precious life is. And for that, I will always be grateful.
6 comments:
That is such an intriguing take on being an artist. After hearing you talk in class, it truly surprises me that this is how you look at yourself as an artist. Defining yourself is completely impossible, if you ask me. I, personally, find that I am walking contradiction. Nothing about me makes sense. I love writing and I know that I will always write no matter where my life takes me. And yet I scored higher in math on the SAT and completely bombed the writing section. I think that because you will not let your art define you, it leaves you open to expand so much more. While I am not completely sure I agree with you, I understand you completely. When I meet people I do not introduce myself as a writer. I do believe it is an extremely large part of me, it is not who I am because if it was then I would have nothing to write about. Who I am makes me a writer not the other way around. Wow. I think your artist statement just changed my whole outlook on life…
Interesting. So being an artist does not define you. You define yourself. I really like this idea because it allows you to be many things...an artist, and philanthropist, a student, a mother...typically when people ask for what someone is it can be limiting. It seems like people define themselves by their art...when ultimately our art is based on who we are...the peripherals.
You were clear about fulfillment, and I really like how you explored it...but I know there's more to being an artist than fulfillment...then again those other things could ultimately be fulfillment. Jesus I'm just contradicting myself all over the place.
Generally, I really liked your artist statement and the ideas within it. I agree with the main idea. It's just very train of thought.
I would like to contend that art’s main goal is not to please one’s self. I mean, if pleasing one’s self was the base desire, why not masterbate? Or binge eat? Or something. I feel like there’s an implied main desire in the object viewer relationship between evey piece of art and its audience. It’s like the old “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” Can art exist in a vacuum? I feel like it’s inherently UNselfish. I know you’re sort of referring to some higher quality of assurance or quality control the artist has for their own work when you go on to discuss Pable Picasso, but I feel like the fact an audience would someday watch, was a primary imperative, or a “main goal” before feeling good or bad about the work. I think perhaps your named it correctly when you called it “hypercrical.” But I think you would agree, this hypercritical-ness comes after you’re sure others will see your work. Right? Just my opinion. You’re an awesome classmate. Have a good summer. (This is totally my attempt at signing your yearbook…because I think you’re cool.)
I was very intrigued as I was reading your statement. It made me think and question my own statement or what I believe it is I do. I think that we do have some selfish desires in our work as artists, but I would go further and say that it is to create something bigger than us. I think if you are only making art in order to be pleased with what you accomplish, then one can never be truly happy with art. If, on the other hand, you offer your art to a higher purpose, such as to perplex your audience into thinking about something, then your art has a purpose whether or not you particularly are happy with it. I am sure that if Picasso did not like a piece of artwork that he did, but it sold very well, he would question why? Why did it sell well? What did the audience take from it? What do they see that I don't see? So, yes, he may not be fulfilled with his outcome, but others have seen something great come out of it.
Even though I just said that, I do think that as artists we should be proud of our art. But we may be displeased with our performance, but touch another's lives. You never know what others may take from any piece of art. I love your statement of how your art does not define you. I think that is an important quality to have because some people "are" their art and their art "is" them. There should be a separate nature to your art and your self in order to be healthy and sane. I think that there is a certain about of yourself that should be invested in the art, but overall you should not be defined by your art. It was a very interesting statement that made me question my own!
While I agree that art lets you appreciate the smaller details in life, as I have began to notice it’s the details in a script that really speak to originality, I disagree that art is work that you do for yourself. It obviously originates from you and has your stamp of personal beliefs/outlooks/internalization, but the product, I would argue, serves a greater purpose. To relate it to your work as an actress, your performance moves the audience to a simple human truth, they relate to you and sometimes that work can perpetuate into their personal lives to give encouragement that someone else suffers or joys in similar ways. That being said, I am extremely impressed with your self-confidence and the pride that you receive from your work. You know how to be self-critical and realize when you’re not giving your all, but when you do, it’s extremely fulfilling to your spirit. Life is precious, and so is art.
Post a Comment