I had this same realisation recently and seeked out works to affirm what was turning in my mind. I'm glad I did. You're going places, I can tell; I for one can't wait to see what you become.
Hmm... For decades, I was a craftsman, writing nonfiction journalism, providing data and analysis my customers needed. Now I am a novelist, and I would think of that as an artisan rather than an artist… But on the other hand, I do have an abundance of personal stories that I want to tell. I don't lack for ideas or inspiration. I think of "art" as an attempt to communicate something, a feeling or an idea. That is part of what I am trying to accomplish with my novels, but the larger goal is simply to provide compelling entertainment, "paying forward" in return for the hundreds of novels I enjoyed in my teens and 20s..
thanks for the comment & kudos on what sounds like a rich writing journey! i think what i'm trying to get at is something to do with the orientation between "artist" and "art" (words that can certainly be used & interpreted in different ways). but, i wonder, does the artist serve the art? or does the art serve the artist?
As a writer, I have been puzzling over what Toni Morrison, whom I deeply admire, said about her work: She never bases her characters on real people. One reason is that a person "owns the copyright to their life," and there is a question of morality in fictionalising the details of someone's life. The other reason is that it leaves no room for invention. This puzzled me because, one, humans can't create something they've never experienced. There's nothing we've imagined that we haven't already seen. Aliens, monsters, dystopian futures: it's all a mash-up of real things we've seen or described to us. We can't create an image of something we've never seen an image of. So, Toni Morrison's words cannot be entirely true. She can't create people who do not resemble those she has personally known. It is not possible. She can create characters with little bits from lots of people, but she can't come up with a human trait that she's never experienced or had described to her, something that does not already exist in a person living or that has once lived. To go beyond that, she contradicts herself often. Beloved was based on a true story. Sula was based on the women she grew up with, how they were, and what they believed in. So then, why would she say she never bases her characters on real people and always invents? Perhaps it's because she thought of herself as an artisan and not an artist. She had a goal of writing stories about a certain kind of people for a certain type of people, and she had the tools to create those narratives; one would say she was one of the only people so well equipped to tell those stories in the way that she did, and she told them through invention. She wasn't writing her life onto the page because that wasn't the job. The first book she ever wrote, she wrote it because she wanted to read it. Not because she wanted to tell it. I think that says it all. It's like trying to find the perfect dress for an event, but you can't find it, so you learn how to sew and make it yourself. You don't become a Fashion House or even a fashion designer; you sit down and create something for someone-even if that person is only yourself. This is a long comment but it's quite amazing you helped me realise that in less than 10 minutes when I've been thinking about it for weeks. So thank you!
i so appreciate your thoughtful comment. on the one hand, i suppose i get the difference between a fictional character who is a lightly-disguised version of a real person and one who is an unrecognizable composite of unknown people. but, either way (and as you say), everything has to come from somewhere. it's one of my hang-ups with the notion of "originality"-as if people are originators of ideas (as opposed to discoverers, developers, mixers, and transmitters of ideas). as Carl Jung says, "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people." Jung included, presumably. anyway, i love what you said about doing the thing *for* someone else, even if that someone else is you. i tend to be of the opinion that the artist should serve the art, not the other way around. which is probably why i gravitate toward the word artisan. thanks again for stopping by!
Great video! Personally, I find it best to not think of myself as anything and just make art that I think is cool. I think of myself as video game designer and director because that is just the type of art I make. It is the kind of role I fill and am passionate about filling. Both artist and artisan are terms that I feel mainly deal with other people’s perceptions of you. Which not to say that what other people think of you isn’t important… but it should never stand in the way of making your art, nor does much value come from getting hung up on thinking about it. I feel it can be a distraction from your work. Acknowledge the reality of your work’s critical reception and move on. Use it to learn and improve. There’s no sense in getting hung up on what to call yourself because it isn’t in your hands. Let other people call you what they will and just focus on making the best work you can. Although, I’ve never been one that lacks inspiration. But people should do whatever they got to do to help make their art. For me, I find it best to leave the semantics to the audience and not worry so much. Let go of ego and just accept whatever people have to say. Focus on pouring love into the work you make! If anything, I think of myself as an eternal student of the arts. A reminder that no how good I become, I’ll never be too good to stop learning absolutely everything and anything I can.
hi!! great video!! i study aesthetics in uni and what you summed up GREATLY here (i love how you "reframed" the nouvelle vague! it took you seconds where it took my prof minutes to get the point across. you're realky amazing), has been a topic of this subject for a long time now. BUT i just wanted to point out that probably michelangelo would've considered himself an artist. it's during his generation that "artists" first became "a different thing" from artisans. if you took an example from one generation prior (except maybe piero della francesca) that would've applied more smoothly. BUT STILL GREAT VIDEO!! it's such a biggg and interesting topic, it was nice to see it summed up so simply but effectively.
thank you! and thank you for the correction! yes, a very biggg and interesting topic. i wonder what michelangelo would have to say on the matter if he were alive today...
A rose by any other name would smells as sweet. For me it’s about do you have an eye. Can you tell is it good or needs more work or listen what needs changing ect. Thanks for bringing up the topic
@narrativebynature I am really interested about how you oversimplify things, also I am trying to learn how to write an engaging script in terms of psychology, philosophy and events.. And I see your channel the only hope to gather all these things together.
i think the 'conspiracy theory'/'nothing is what it seems'/'you're in danger' trope is really effective. how it works, imo, is it establishes the viewer as the protagonist and then manipulates them with a slow drip of ever-darker 'reveals.' it's the gamification of "facts." your thoughts?
Love this take man! Great vid, you've put into words what I've felt for a long time. I'm an artisan.
so glad this resonated with you. thanks for watching!
You’re a gem, truly deserve all the subscribers and love but I also want to gatekeep you.
YOU are a gem. and i'm so thankful that you took the time to watch and comment. thank you!!
I had this same realisation recently and seeked out works to affirm what was turning in my mind. I'm glad I did.
You're going places, I can tell; I for one can't wait to see what you become.
thank you! and what an epic yt handle you have!
Hmm... For decades, I was a craftsman, writing nonfiction journalism, providing data and analysis my customers needed.
Now I am a novelist, and I would think of that as an artisan rather than an artist…
But on the other hand, I do have an abundance of personal stories that I want to tell. I don't lack for ideas or inspiration.
I think of "art" as an attempt to communicate something, a feeling or an idea.
That is part of what I am trying to accomplish with my novels, but the larger goal is simply to provide compelling entertainment, "paying forward" in return for the hundreds of novels I enjoyed in my teens and 20s..
thanks for the comment & kudos on what sounds like a rich writing journey! i think what i'm trying to get at is something to do with the orientation between "artist" and "art" (words that can certainly be used & interpreted in different ways). but, i wonder, does the artist serve the art? or does the art serve the artist?
As a writer, I have been puzzling over what Toni Morrison, whom I deeply admire, said about her work: She never bases her characters on real people. One reason is that a person "owns the copyright to their life," and there is a question of morality in fictionalising the details of someone's life. The other reason is that it leaves no room for invention.
This puzzled me because, one, humans can't create something they've never experienced. There's nothing we've imagined that we haven't already seen. Aliens, monsters, dystopian futures: it's all a mash-up of real things we've seen or described to us. We can't create an image of something we've never seen an image of.
So, Toni Morrison's words cannot be entirely true. She can't create people who do not resemble those she has personally known. It is not possible. She can create characters with little bits from lots of people, but she can't come up with a human trait that she's never experienced or had described to her, something that does not already exist in a person living or that has once lived.
To go beyond that, she contradicts herself often. Beloved was based on a true story. Sula was based on the women she grew up with, how they were, and what they believed in.
So then, why would she say she never bases her characters on real people and always invents? Perhaps it's because she thought of herself as an artisan and not an artist. She had a goal of writing stories about a certain kind of people for a certain type of people, and she had the tools to create those narratives; one would say she was one of the only people so well equipped to tell those stories in the way that she did, and she told them through invention. She wasn't writing her life onto the page because that wasn't the job. The first book she ever wrote, she wrote it because she wanted to read it. Not because she wanted to tell it. I think that says it all. It's like trying to find the perfect dress for an event, but you can't find it, so you learn how to sew and make it yourself. You don't become a Fashion House or even a fashion designer; you sit down and create something for someone-even if that person is only yourself.
This is a long comment but it's quite amazing you helped me realise that in less than 10 minutes when I've been thinking about it for weeks. So thank you!
i so appreciate your thoughtful comment. on the one hand, i suppose i get the difference between a fictional character who is a lightly-disguised version of a real person and one who is an unrecognizable composite of unknown people. but, either way (and as you say), everything has to come from somewhere. it's one of my hang-ups with the notion of "originality"-as if people are originators of ideas (as opposed to discoverers, developers, mixers, and transmitters of ideas). as Carl Jung says, "People don't have ideas. Ideas have people." Jung included, presumably.
anyway, i love what you said about doing the thing *for* someone else, even if that someone else is you. i tend to be of the opinion that the artist should serve the art, not the other way around. which is probably why i gravitate toward the word artisan.
thanks again for stopping by!
Amazing analysis keep making more videos ❤
thank you! very appreciated!!
Great video!
Personally, I find it best to not think of myself as anything and just make art that I think is cool.
I think of myself as video game designer and director because that is just the type of art I make. It is the kind of role I fill and am passionate about filling.
Both artist and artisan are terms that I feel mainly deal with other people’s perceptions of you. Which not to say that what other people think of you isn’t important… but it should never stand in the way of making your art, nor does much value come from getting hung up on thinking about it. I feel it can be a distraction from your work.
Acknowledge the reality of your work’s critical reception and move on. Use it to learn and improve. There’s no sense in getting hung up on what to call yourself because it isn’t in your hands.
Let other people call you what they will and just focus on making the best work you can.
Although, I’ve never been one that lacks inspiration. But people should do whatever they got to do to help make their art.
For me, I find it best to leave the semantics to the audience and not worry so much. Let go of ego and just accept whatever people have to say. Focus on pouring love into the work you make!
If anything, I think of myself as an eternal student of the arts. A reminder that no how good I become, I’ll never be too good to stop learning absolutely everything and anything I can.
labels are necessarily reductive, 100%. and the map is not the territory. thanks for stopping by and for leaving such a thoughtful comment!
So much value on your channel! Keep going. The subscribers will come.
amazing of you to say so. i sincerely appreciate the encouragement!
this is amazing!
thank you for watching!
THIS CHANNEL IS AWESOME!!!!!!!
thank you for checking it out!!
hi!! great video!! i study aesthetics in uni and what you summed up GREATLY here (i love how you "reframed" the nouvelle vague! it took you seconds where it took my prof minutes to get the point across. you're realky amazing), has been a topic of this subject for a long time now.
BUT i just wanted to point out that probably michelangelo would've considered himself an artist. it's during his generation that "artists" first became "a different thing" from artisans. if you took an example from one generation prior (except maybe piero della francesca) that would've applied more smoothly.
BUT STILL GREAT VIDEO!!
it's such a biggg and interesting topic, it was nice to see it summed up so simply but effectively.
thank you! and thank you for the correction! yes, a very biggg and interesting topic. i wonder what michelangelo would have to say on the matter if he were alive today...
Which Uni teaches aesthetics?
Very interesting. Thank you
thanks for watching!
Thank you
thank YOU.
A rose by any other name would smells as sweet.
For me it’s about do you have an eye. Can you tell is it good or needs more work or listen what needs changing ect. Thanks for bringing up the topic
for sure. in the end, they're both just words. but, hopefully, it's a worthwhile conversation. thanks for watching!
Baristas are artisnal. Artist is now meaningless thru over-adoption.
l've gone back to limner.
*limner*-a new word for me. thanks for sharing!
This is very valuable ❤
I would love it if you analyse the storytelling used in the scripts of 'Nexpo' RUclips channel!
seems i'm out of the loop. will check it out asap and circle back. thanks for watching!
@narrativebynature I am really interested about how you oversimplify things, also I am trying to learn how to write an engaging script in terms of psychology, philosophy and events.. And I see your channel the only hope to gather all these things together.
@@Lofii138 i'm glad you're finding it helpful. what is your script about? how far along the process are you?
i think the 'conspiracy theory'/'nothing is what it seems'/'you're in danger' trope is really effective. how it works, imo, is it establishes the viewer as the protagonist and then manipulates them with a slow drip of ever-darker 'reveals.' it's the gamification of "facts." your thoughts?
@@narrativebynature I specialise the niche of psychology, philosophy and weird events , with 6 months of experience.