#diagnostic

On Art

Fundamentally there are two schools of thought concerning the Platonic Artist and their production. You have the romanticized idea of an artist. Your Pollocks and Basquiats, your bloody-eared Van Goghs and your contemporary Kanye Wests. These artists are well known and well-mimicked, known as much for their artwork as their emotional, passionate connection between them and their work. To consume the artwork of such a character is often accompanied by a consumption of the artist themselves, and indeed the artist themselves seems to be a walking form of art unseparated from their image.

In contrast, we have the antipodal “craftsman” artist. Such artists are unconnected from their work, at least relative to the prior artists who are overwhelmingly connected to their art. They produce art according to a regimented system, working dilligently but scarcely out of bounds of set times and boundaries. They work not when the “magic spark” comes to them or when they are flooded with a deep sense of purpose and inspiration, but on a 9-5 schedule after their morning tea. They work regardless of feeling or mood, and so their production is not limited by mood. The image of the artist, accordingly, tells you very little about their work, and while they might be focused on their current work they are not forever defined by it, as is the case with the eccentric artist. In this sense, the eccentric artist is like the mammalian mother, who nurtures and cares for their few children; Indeed, placental mammals are directly connected to their offspring during gestation. A loss of a child here is a great hit to the mother, who loses not only their child and the time invested into them but also the connection to the child which is fostered by their very biology. The craftsman on the other hand is more similar to any variety of egg-laying species. They produce consistently and near-industrially. They are attached to their children surely, but by their very nature a potential loss is much more impersonal.

Another important distinction between the eccentric and the craftsman is their mindset. The craftsmen and the artist both produce art. I would argue they are even defined by it. While they both produce art, I would say each artist percieves art differently, and this effects how they produce art. The eccentric operates based on uncontrollable input. They cannot know when the urge to work will occur, and they tend to throw around terms such as inspiration, muse, and epiphany. An artist of this type seems to need to summon artwork, they do not work to produce it, it finds them through meaningful action, situation, or exemplification. As such, their work cannot be produced according to a regular forecast; they cannot be signed to a deal to make an album or painting within a specific timeframe. The craftsman doesn’t see art the same way. To them, artistry is a skill, and a skill can be trained and engaged in regardless of mood. Afterall why should art be exempt from this intuition? Someone who cooks and continues to do so is likely to improve their cooking. They will learn how things cook and to what temperature. They learn what spices to use, what ingredients to pair with what, and how to combine them seamlessley into a dish. This makes perfect sense, and so why can art not be done the same way?