Part I

...but I will write about it anyway...

A cliché question no doubt, but this quagmire is truly worth wading through when approached in a correct state of mind and often will yield plentiful delicious fruit. To begin to understand this immense pondering, let me pose two more alike the first, “Who makes art?” and “For whom is art made?” Many of these questions’ iquiritus companions join in my sojourn to become a maker worthy of the title “artista.” I will also disclose to you, my new friend, that I secretly entertain the illusion of said sojourn to destine with creating a self not only worthy of “artista,” but also that of “philosofia.”

“Who makes art?” I have often wondered if the general populous not considering themselves artists would be deemed (or deem themselves) “artist” if they are put into a situation where they knowingly create or assist in creating a piece. Now, revisit this same situation, but replace knowingly with unknowingly. Does an unknowing participant still qualify as an “artist”? Does qualification depend on the specifications of the piece and situation surrounding it? To address these inquiries, I have invited comrades and strangers to participate in pieces designed specifically with this purpose.

As a personal aside: my ego tells me that I believe one does not need to be an artist to create artwork. I am one of the people! I am SO forward thinking, avante guarde, etc. But my education plays at odds with my ego. Or maybe I believe most GOOD art comes from people who either have the opportunity to devote their lives to it (lucky them) or have gone to “art school” (which is pretty much the same thing). Juxtaposed, I honestly could care less when others call themselves an artist, but I do struggle to use the distinction in self-description (even after “art school”). But all asiding…aside, let us find our way back to the discussion.

Why can anyone proclaim themselves an artist and there is no further investigation from whomever is listening? The term “artist” is much more open than titles such as “electrician” or “professor” which bears with it certain assumed knowledge (and one might argue responsibilities). Artist does not hold with it any assumed knowledge or responsibilities (although, I will say that once I had decided to go to art school and continuing today, everyone with whom I was acquainted suddenly was and is in need of a painting. There does seem to be a definite perception that all artists can paint. This was nothing but humorous to me since I had but once done an acrylic painting, not bad, but no Van Gogh. I suppose I am contradicting myself here. So be it. Welcome to my mislogic.). Perhaps the true investigation is not who makes art, but who has the power to deem one an artist? Self-titling is always questionable. There is institutional titling, but I’ve never been a fan of allowing my particular brand of insanity be titled by an institution – educational or not. Is the bestowal of such a title a birth right? A royal heritage passed down from wealthy society/philanthropist to their heir (money buys all things)? Is a title earned? Earned only when the…let us say, “lands and spoils” worthy of the title are amassed that such a title is true in its right?

While encouraging every individual to be an artist, I am at the same time not only facilitating but dictating the means and the piece. I am truly the Grand Master, the brains, the genius (how could I help myself?). The dichotomy is that everyone is the artist, while simultaneously, I solely am the artist.

Beginning...

Chuck Norris CAN judge a book by its cover, and I'm sure a blog by its title.

What is a first blog supposed to say?
"Hi." ...
"Welcome."

My (new?) friends, I will likely share some ideas on the struggle we so fondly name "art" (I know, I know, but what else am I going to blog about, I am boring), and perhaps about some travels. So, sit back and expect to be confused!