When you go to some art communities,
it seems like for most the people there
everyone who draws something = artist.

I've seen people who really can't draw,
have no art knowledge or concept what so ever,
have no motivation to improve from practice or learning,
but worshiped by some people as a great artist
only because he made a very simple doodle
and put some long explanation about it.

This is not jealousy over (empty) popularity,
but more like... watching a phenomenon, a trend,
which ends up confuse me. ^^;;

I know beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,
but is this mean everyone is a real artist,
no matter how good or super terrible you are?

It's like, one day a guy can fix his broken chair,
and that will instantly make him a carpenter?

I think, on part, it is based on opinion, but there are certain limits. I think the issue isn't about the artist him/herself but more about the audience which the "art" is being directed at - especially in online art communities (e.g. deviantART, etc., etc.). If the person who is receiving this popularity really doesn't try to improve even though it is clear that he has no strong foundation for his own style, etc., then it's the people who look at his art and blow it out of proportion.

Take fanart, for example, if a person draws fanart, there's an instant liking to him/her because majority of the audience in "popular" art communities are people who share the same interest.

As for the analogy of someone who fixes a broken chair, I think it's more or less an issue of humility. A person who cannot acknowledge his shortcomings risks coming off as a self-conceited jerk, so maybe the "artists" you frown upon are backed up by a fan base and lack of humility which are a horrible combination. If you go out to an actual, real live art community that isn't geared toward something like anime, you come across a large variety of artists who, for the most part, have a reason why they're popular. And now I'm babbling... sorry if that didn't make sense very well.

I think being an artist has become something defined as having an audience that enjoys your work. There are many types of art that I myself have found myself wondering, why is this popular?

I was in an art museum one time and there was a collection of pieces by a pastor. All of his pieces were similar, with the faces being amatuerly done and all from the same angle. He used bright colors and added text. His pieces looked like something anyone could pull off yet they were displayed in the same museum as ancient Greek sculptures. I couldn't understand it.

It also works with artists who don't seem to sell anything until after they die. The art community never took them seriously, but suddenly their art is discovered and they are a "master" because it's selling for millions of dollars.

Unfortunately it seems that people can't be considered artists unless they can find a fan base that understands (or thinks they understand) what the artist is trying to say with their art.

I think there's a difference between "art" and "drawings". If someone makes a drawing which clearly shows that the creator has no clue of what they're doing, then no, I don't think they're an artist, they're just a person who draws.

I never really got why some of those self-proclaimed "artists" put watermarks/signatures under crappy pencil doodles of elves/anthros/Naruto characters...

I think real "art" is grasped only by the current trend. True art might not be recognized long after the artist has passed. "Drawings" are merely pictures that arise from mediums - pencils, pens, computers, paints, chalk, etc. Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think something is art, not everyone will agree with you. "artist" is a name given to those by the popular.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, truly. Art is all in the time and place, because some types are popular now, and in five years, no one will buy anything in that style.

I totally agree, just because you drew something doesn't mean your an artist. But on the other side it is also a matter of perspective and understanding. For example, Picasso is a well known artist but I just don't get it and don't like his art. That doesn't mean he's not an artist.

You don't have to be skilled for drawing. The most beautiful thing in a drawing is the emotion in it. There are so many factors, too...

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)

hmm...anyone can be an "artist" in my mind even if there work is not the greatest. However a True artists studies there work reflects upon it and improves upon it. This is what draws the line between artist and a person who draws...is the drive to always do better then the last work......practice and study.

I see art as two different things; expertise at the art as a mechanical skill or as a way of representing a deeper or more meaningful idea.

I love a mixture of two and favor more mechanical drawings, but would not be upset with the brand of artists that are famous for ideas, because ideas can be much more important.

Hmm...
I know of many great artists who go unrecognized.
I know of many people who go recognized for some crappy doodle. :S
I don't define an artist as being necessarily dexterity inclined. (Abstract art)
Artist are creative in mind.

I can understand any newbie to art to dislike criticism but only because they don't understand that the person is trying to help them rather they see it as an attack.
Which the community will follow suit and put the critiquer (sorry my spelling is bad so I know thats the incorrect spelling :S) down for trying to help.

I rarely do critiques however in my community arts class we learned if a person use words like "you" the newbie artist is more likely to believe that such person is using words to attack him or her. There for try to eliminate if from the critique and the newbie artist is less likely to complain. Doing so would also make it easier to listen to people's criticisms.

Friendship is one of the many factors that nurtures these "false" perceptions, I think, if we're talking artists in forum-format games. Just how far would you go to tell a mediocre artist friend that his/her work is so.

Nope being an artist is a skill like any other skill.

However it does not mean if you don't produce professional quality artwork, you can't call yourself an artist. A hobbyist is an artist too, even if they are less skilled.

Someone who produces without any skill whatever is not an artist.
No matter how popular.

First, I disagree vehemently with the idea that drawings are not art. Drawings are a subdivision of art, and I find many of them more emotive, more revealing and more interesting than more elaborate works.

Regarding the topic at hand, I think too many people consider art in terms of its ability to reproduce reality. A knowledge of perspective, anatomy, color theory, and technical skill is fine, even desirable, but it does not define art. I define art as visual communication. As soon as a picture is exposed to people other than its creator, it becomes a form of communication, or more specifically a conversation, between the artist and at least one other person.

It doesn't matter if the picture in question features people, cows, an orange, or a bunch of variously colored squares; it offers a topic to the viewer, and he can bring whatever he likes to that image. The artist may make it with his own internal strife in mind, but the viewer may see something else in it, something he identifies with. And sometimes the viewer doesn't understand the point, but we have conversations like this in life all the time.

Something that puzzles me about art is the sanctity of the term itself. If a person doesn't like a particular kind of art, he says, "That's not art-- that's rubbish." But when he reads a bad novel, he still calls it a novel.

I guess it's easier on a person's pride to say, "That's crap," than it is for him to say, "I don't understand."

I've seen some good abstract artwork. So I do not go by how realistic the work is.
It's about skills and other things which are somewhat difficult to describe.
I see abstract work a bit like a cartoon or anime...Just because it's not realistic doesn't mean you throw quality standards out the window.
Yes I realize there's a lot of room for different viewpoints about what is art and what is not given the vague descriptions.

Thing is...Me taking a dirty toliet and sticking it in a museum is not art. It's still just a dirty toliet.
I feel when people do things like this, it takes away the meaning of real art and makes artwork have less value...Since according to some people, you can randomly throw objects together and call it artwork without any meaning involved.

The presence of art we dislike does not devalue art as a whole. That's kind of a strange assertion to make.

The problem with your analogy is that one can't simply "stick something in a museum". The relevance and meaning of art is something arrived at by consensus. People compare their own ideas and decide if a given work is, in their opinion, worthy of display. If it is, and it has the honor of being in a museum, it means something to someone, even if the statement itself is about nothingness.

What I'm getting at, really, is that art is a medium-- a method of communication-- just like a film, book, or video game. Some of it is good, some is bad, some is mediocre, but all of it is still art. It has little to do with the artist's intended meaning (or lack thereof) or allegory or anything else like that. All art can say something to you if you are prepared to observe and think about it. Whether you want to do so is another question entirely.

I see art not as a state of worthiness, but as a category of things. My aesthetic principles make me more inclined to like some of those things as opposed to others, but I do not see how the statement, "That's not art," has worth to anyone.

Ahhh the age-old debate - "What is art"

I don't know one person who has been able to really answer it other than "A reflection of someone's soul" be it music, a painting, or dance.

Is your 5 years old cousin's doodle art? Her mom thinks so.
Is it art when an elephant paints for charity?
Is it art if it's premade like Duchamp's 'Fountain'?

It really is 'in the eye of the beholder' as far as I'm concerned, and it's a personal decision whether you like or accept it, but the creator can consider it as such. :3

Drawing well doesn't make you an artist.
Passion and expression makes you an artist.
You could draw the crappiest little doodle, but if it's meaningful to you, it's art.
Although there are some exceptions.
like graphic artists. They make hundreds of images, that are meaningless, but they are still an artist, so if you are good at art (in general), it sort of does make you an artist in a way.
Also, there are many different kinds of art. I would say almost everything is an art.
even DRIVING. so, yes, everyone is and can be an artist.

I think it really depends on the person. There are many different types of art, and artists out there. I've tryed doodling...I can't! It's just not possible, it ends up becoming something detailed and intricate no matter what. Not saying i'm an artist, but I have dabbled in quite a few different ways of doing art.

I won't really accept being called an artist until I'm doing it professionally, but I do throw around the word at times to describe myself. I barely ever mean it though.
You might be making art, but being an artist is a profession. It's like putting out a fire in your kitchen and calling yourself a firefighter.

Artists are artists. That's why we have terms like 'journeyman' and 'master'. I wouldn't get all hysterical about people who want to paint even if they suck.

Jack Kerouac took himself terribly seriously as an artist. He was atrocious, in every sense of the word. There is a book of his artwork out there, and, in it, art reviewers try to find nice things to say about the stuff.

But people are paying attention. That art, horrible as it is, fills a need.

At the end of his life Picasso was churning out garbage. Did that make him less of an artist? Sure. Did it mean he wasn't an artist anymore? No.

Ahhh well
i think personally in order to qualify something as art it must successfully convey the artists intended message. and it could be any message, not just some wordy bullshit or some deep philosophical thing, but it does have to have purpose behind it (in my opinion) and that message has to be understood at least partially by the viewer (at least a viewer who is also an artist and tries to find the meaning in it)
otherwise it is a drawing, a painting, et cetera.
i personally do not consider realism art either, because you are just imitating what you see but you do not put a specific meaning into it that can be read, because with realism it could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people... plus you dont put any of yourself into it.
thats just my opinion though. truthfully a lot of things that people like to call art (and it fact most of it like on deviantart for example) isnt really art at all; to create an actual work of art puts you in a very small elite group of people.

Honestly, I think true art makes you feel something. I don't believe those art like putting a few dots on a canvas is actual art. I myself am terrible at artwork,and I don't consider myself an artist at all. yet I too have come across rather awful pics being drawn at the artists is actually charging for their work and people are buying it.

Being an artist means you create something artistic as your profession.
It's like saying you're a firefighter if you put out a small fire in your kitchen. You can draw, but you would just be a person with a hobby for art. An artist is someone who makes money off of their art, or has art as their main objective in life.

It has happened to me lately more than ever that when I say I'm an artist someone asks me What kind of artist are you? because there are many kinds or because they want to know about my particular style.
But going back in time when I first joined the avie sites back in 2004 I remember I was ashamed of calling myself artist and tried to avoid that name because I was not worth the title....I mean I can barely consider ten artists in all the websites I am in (not devian of course) my point is....not everyone is an artist then why people keep calling themselves or calling other "artists"
what is your standar criteria for calling yourself an artist?
For me artists are Leonardo or Michelangelo (not the ninja turles no)
and some people who is really damn good....but all the people who "draw" no...those are just ..."people who draw" not artists


your opinions?