Great thread and,
@darr, thanks for the passion. The participants here are unlikely to ever agree on what art is, but I am pretty sure that it doesn't matter if we do. I am a scientist - to the bone - and my views of artist or art are unlikely to conincide with those of a professional artist. We shouldn't agree, just as my views of evolution will diverge from those of a bible literalist. Different world views and agreement is not to be expected.
My point is just that there has to be some restriction on the use of the terms
art and
artist or those terms are meaningless. Are you a musician because you can chord a guitar? Or because you think you chord nicely? The restriction I use is that art must be appreciated by people other than its creator. The more appreciators, the better this art meets the definition. Note that doesn't mean the work is better, just that it is easier to define as art.
My hypothesis holds that many viable works are not seen as art, because the creator is invisible. Vivian Maier comes to mind. All we can hope is that art - like truth - will out, as it did for Maier's body of work. And that brings us back to the OT of whether the art is independent of the artist. I have suggested that for art that is already highly valued (Turner, Picasso, Weston, etc), it usually is. For artists still building rep it isn't, and the artist is often marketed to enhance the art. In the noncommercial world, however, there are many invisible creators who lack the ability to put their work in public view. According to my definition, thereofre, that work was never art. We can only hope that the future will expose it, allowing it to become art. Many artists have to wait until after death for recognition.
For me, that's the point of this place, these forums. By appearing here I come out of the shadows a little bit. Not enough to consider myself an artist, but better than invisible.
Thank you for your thoughtful post. You’ve given a lot of consideration to the nature of art, artists, and the lens through which each of us views creative work. I agree: differing worldviews are not only expected, but essential to meaningful discourse. After all, if everyone agreed on what art
is, the entire field would probably feel a bit lifeless.
Your scientific framing of appreciation as a defining metric, that art must be valued by others to be considered art, is compelling in a sociological sense. But from where I stand, as someone who lives and breathes visual expression, I would offer a slightly different angle.
To me, a visual artist is someone who brings something into existence that didn’t exist before, whether that’s a painting, a photograph, a sculpture, or even a compelling arrangement of everyday objects. It’s not just about making
images, it’s about generating
ideas and translating emotion, thought, or observation into something tangible. In that sense, it’s deeply personal. I sometimes joke that each piece is an extension of my being, like the child Marco speaks of, created, nurtured, and let out into the world with hope and intent.
Of course, recognition is another layer entirely. As you said, history is full of now-celebrated artists who were invisible in their own time, Vivian Maier being a hauntingly beautiful example. I absolutely agree that many artists labor unseen, and that the ability to share work publicly, or not, is often what determines whether something is
recognized as art. But for me, that doesn't mean the work itself
wasn't art before it was discovered. It simply hadn’t found its audience yet.
I was raised with a saying that hung on the wall in our home:
"The forest would be very quiet if only the birds that sang best, sang."
That little quote has stayed with me throughout my life, especially as an artist. It reminds me that expression isn’t reserved for the elite, the famous, or the technically perfect. Creativity, like birdsong, is meant to be shared, not measured against some imagined standard of greatness.
Art, like truth, has a way of surfacing. Sometimes quietly, sometimes loudly. And sometimes, yes, after we’re gone. But I believe the act of making the intent, the vision, the care, is enough to call someone an artist, whether or not their work ever hangs in a gallery or draws a crowd.
I admire your self-awareness and humility in saying this forum helps you come “out of the shadows.” I’d say participating in creative conversation, sharing work, and exploring ideas are all things artists do. Visibility may follow, or not, but the act of expression itself is already beginning.
Thanks again for your insight. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
