Artists Are Normal

The plural of artist is artistS. Not trying to be the Grammar Police but not using the plural form renders the title of this thread incorrect....as well as the many times it was not used correctly in the body of your post. Just trying to help as this is a common mistake seen on here :)

Thanks Joy, not my strongpoint!

No, thank you Ronald for not taking offense :)

I agree..who can say what normal is? Being creative, an artist, feels very "normal" for me. I don't know how to be any other way. I had some problems years ago, and my creativity seemed to go underground for a while. I kept wondering if it would come back...and it did. I felt very much not myself when dealing with these overwhelming problems. And I was so grateful to make art again...it helped so much in my recovery.

Again, this begs the question "What is normal?". We are all normal in the sense that none of us are normal because there is no such thing as normal, so it's therefore normal to not be normal because normal is impossible to define.

Lets define "normal" for the sake of this thread as being something you have seen many many times.

In this day of constant, instant information at our fingertips, (often whether we want it or not) what haven't most of us seen many, many times? Even ignoring that fact you've made normalcy relative. What's "normal" for NYC isn't normal for Defiance, Iowa because those two populations see entirely different things day to day.

I do NOT want to be normal. At acting classes I've become the 'artist gal' as i do not have 'normal' hair or dress. I love that. I don't want to be one of the crowd in the way I dress or look, or act. I'm very different in real life now than I was only a few years ago. I've now stopped giving a damn for convention.

What you want or don't want is not a biggie. You can act as strange or as unusual as you wish, as an artist is your work unusual or down the center?

"I do NOT want to be normal. "

So, you are saying you are Abbie Normal? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Even where it adheres to the conventions (formal concerns) of 'art', for myself, if it is otherwise less than 'unusual' I probably would look for another way to animate my life...at least I would hope that my posture would be so.
As for 'down the center' it is a tightrope that I have watch change through the many years of the activity. My metaphor most often used it: 'going with the flow'...my posture has most assuredly been to go 'withershins' - but unless you reference it from its older usage you might miss my point - it is not 'going with the flow' for certain!
Have a good day Ronald, love your picking our minds...

David King, :)

The entire field of advertising would suffer if we truly were different or unique. We are a silly society where conformity is pushed but we given a token pat on the back to uniqueness. When it comes right down to it we are sheep, baaa, baaa, baaa, baaa, Even artists!

You are just tickling it Ronald...go for it and say all of it...I just publish a book and it is lenghty in this problem and recorded as a 'end note' ... PR... and how we are moved !!! Big stuff! thank you for opening that can of worms...

We are both -- the same where it counts and different where it counts. People who can't adapt don't survive.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

IMHO, all art springs from an individual's inner landscape. The strength of an artist depends a lot on how they are developing that landscape.

I never thought I would be an artist when I was growing up. Dabbled in a few things - calligraphy, photography, etc. - but didn't think I had the right mindset for it.

Then in my 20's, started exploring photography to a degree which could almost be called obsessive. Explored it in a number of different ways - photojournalism, portraits, wedding, public relations, commercial, studio - all while maintaining a day job. Couldn't afford to quit that because my hobby was too expensive!

I'm now in my mid-50's. I had the realization at age 50 that I wanted to develop that inner landscape to the exclusion of almost everything else. Quit the day job and never looked back.

I certainly don't have many of the luxuries I had before. I spend most of my money these days on equipment and travel, and have cut back a lot on nonessentials. But it's the best thing I've ever done for myself - given myself free rein to develop my inner landscape. For that, I am thankful.

All children are artists at a young age. At some point things change and if asked in 5th grade very few will willingly say they are artists where a few years earlier they were on board with it. Picasso said, I believe, "the trick is staying an artist."

Looks are very deceiving sometimes. What we choose to see, well that's another matter entirely. I believe where, "normal" gets a little dicey is when you start talking to the creative personality and you find an inner life sometimes very different than that of other folk. So for that maybe, outside society, "normal." Like talent, I think we ALL have it and it's quite normal and common really. It's what we do with the talent that makes the difference. Some use it and grow to become so much more than the talent they were born with. Many subdue creative urges and some are crushed creatively by conforming to the "normal" of society only to grow late in life to understand they have to follow another path. Some had to survive society and it's pressures to be some other, "normal" not their own. No easy thing.

Am I normal? Yes. Am I different? Yes, because we are all unique in many ways. The next time you talk to your Doctor, your plumber, your lawyer you may be talking to an artist who's, "day job" is something other entirely. It's really very complex. That is pretty normal.

We are all unique and special. Today everyone wants to stick the moniker, "artist" on their job title. It's not that easy. Some are physically unable to be normal. I'm somewhat dyslexic for instance. Something not that uncommon in the artist community. For that I am a little different from those who do not have that struggle. You can not see it, you may not ever know by looking at me but it has helped alter my life in unusual ways I believe. It also gave me some maybe abnormal advantages.

I hate conventions. I hate that for years if you were a man and owned a mini-van you were considered less than a man. What a bunch of bull. I hate it when women go out in -10 temperatures without anything on their heads (usually young women), because they don't want to mess up their hair. Who the heck cares? Get over yourself. I don't own a tablet and never had an i-pod. So what? That doesn't make me out of touch, that means I didn't feel like wasting my money on something I didn't want or need.

I don't know what normal is either, but I never wanted to be part of it. Also, my kids friends always thought I was "different and cool". I don't know what they think now that a lot of them are middle aged, but a lot of them are not "normal" as adults either, which I really appreciate.

Favorite commercial, Dr. Pepper. Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too? The Original taste of Dr. Pepper, the commercial seems to be based on being one of a group and being an original at the same time.

Controlling groups of people is sort of an art in itself. Schools, Religion, governments are all masters of the craft. In some cases it is done by humans strong need to belong, in others it is more a conform or die thing.

I am wondering if the pressure to conform to norms is greater today than the past? The greater the population the more the need to keep everyone in line becomes otherwise you have anarchy!

Well some of that comes from childhood. I was painfully shy as a kid and I didn't want to do anything to draw attention to myself. Fortunately, I grew out of it quickly and I couldn't care less what people think of me now, but a lot of people keep that mentality for most of their lives. They want to be accepted and the only way they think they can be accepted is to conform to what everyone thinks they should say, do, wear, own....

I could see the opposite reaction occurring as well. The greater the pressure to conform the more some people fight to stand out from the crowd.

True, but those would probably be the "rebellious" kids. I didn't even want to be noticed. High school for me was a living hell. I had friends, but they were what would be called today the "nerds".

Mary, I can relate I was on the chess team!

Yeah, college for me was liberating. Although I did wear bell-bottoms, fringed shirts, granny dresses (if anyone remembers those) my hair was down to my waist and I went bra-less, and I guess I was conforming somewhat, I never wore the headband LOL.

Don Zawadiwsky, kindred spirit no doubt; in that the camera started my explore (in early '60s) then went inner (early '80s) with paint and such; then put the two (in/out) together (ten or so yrs. ago) and it all just keeps getting more interesting - walked out back in '88, likewise never looked back...Thanks for sharing!, tdp


we remember Mary! lol

David rofl

My photography? No, it is not normal, not any more. I am sharing this only to show, not to start an image thread.

Love that Abbie, very nice!

It is abnormal to be normal and normal to be abnormal.

Andy, normally I would agree!

"I was painfully shy as a kid and I didn't want to do anything to draw attention to myself. Fortunately, I grew out of it quickly and I couldn't care less what people think of me now, but a lot of people keep that mentality for most of their lives"

I'm still that way Mary, not because I care what anybody thinks of me, (I already know they just don't understand me anyway) I just don't like attention, I'm an introvert's introvert I guess you could say. It's probably the #1 reason I'm a failure at marketing. Last fall I was supposed to have a little "celebration" for my years of service at the company. I told them they can go ahead and have it if they want but I won't be attending. lol One thing the managers have learned around here is that while I'm not insistent about much when I am I really mean it.

Well, David, I worked for the same man for 31 years as his office manager, and it was the point where I just said it like I saw it. I would not do it in front of clients, but we were hiring another employee and I had a very loud (but not angry) argument with my boss about why he should show up at a meeting or something, and the guy we were hiring just kept looking back and forth at us (like he was at a tennis match) and his mouth was open - I just looked at him and said "Don't worry about it, we do this all the time".

For years, when I was pretty young, I took the "honey, baby, sweetheart" from clients. If one of them did that to me now, I'd slap him upside the head.

And I tell my new boss how much I hate some of the software. He just laughs.

But I know what you mean. I was never a complainer, so when I got "insistent", they knew I meant it too.

In an older book I have about the life of Picasso in complete detailed biography form the writer makes note of the weekend parties in Paris at artist's apartments and flats and how the artists and their friends seemed to compete in who has the weirdest and most outstanding clothing and behaviors. Also noted was the Cubism that Picasso saw the other artists making she
I have led him to join in on the movement.

In this most powerful creative time any sort of diversion from the boring establishment was welcome.

Even if any artist wanted to be different today how is it even possible? One thing is to quit playing the role of artsey cool pop which is something no Artist of merit today engages in.

No idea what the last sentence meant but it sounds as though it's something I do so am no artist of merit.

Awesome

“He is, or has been, in many ways a great man. But for this very reason he is odd. It is only petty men who seem normal.”
― Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose

"He was just a normal guy" isn't that what the co-workers and neighbors always say after someone goes bezerk?

Or "Jeez, she appeared to be such a normal person, I would never have expected her to be an artist."

Hiya guys,

Every professional artist I have ever known and I have known quite a few, were hard working and straight arrow guys. None of them dressed weird or looked weird. But inside they all had passionate hearts and drove themselves physically and mentally to create their art. Also i can honestly say that I have never met an artist that I didn't like.

Oh! How I wish to be "Normal"

BUT:

When one is God it's hard to do

Most artists, like most other people, are 'surface-normal'. One good scratch, though, and the strangeness comes bubbling up. Seems to be a common trait among our species.

I fall on the naturally weird side -- but, as a kid, I was always told I was weird, odd, strange, and generally unacceptable within my family, community, and social peer group. From a very early age, I chose to embrace that persona as a kind of self-validation and, even more, a type of self-defense.

Tell a kid something often enough and, eventually, they'll believe it.

Would I be more 'average' or 'normal' if I'd grown up differently? Different time? Different place? Different people? Who knows?

I was a weird secretary, a weird interior decorator, a weird computer tech, musician, writer, etc. It's me . . . as convenient as that would be, I can't blame 'me' on art.

Schizophrenics and manic depressives are perfectly normal. Anything in the human condition is "normal". As in it happens.

Healthy? I eat organics. I believe my carrots should be labeled as carrots and anything else should have a label stating GMO and the chemicals used.

Art, normal art? Most of it is weireded out a bit. What is conventional art? Decor? What happens when the decor is subverted?

Creativity? Usually to be creative integrating more things into your art is necessary. Been there done that. I have the T shirt.

The exploration of self? Navel gazing? Expanding ones inner universe? Looking to the stars from Earth? Seeing ones shadow on the playground blacktop?

To grow up or not, but to grow old?

What is not the human condition?

Dave

I always understood "normal" as a statistics concept. Pick a statistical curve, and whatever's near the fat part of the curve (that would be the middle in a classic bell curve), and that's "normal" for whatever you're measuring.

I'm never sure what people are talking about when they say normal... normal intelligence, normal athletic or musical ability, normal choices in clothes fashion or hair style, normal choices in places to live, the possibilities for human characteristics to measure are almost infinite. A person can be completely normal in one area, and off in the statistical tail of the curve in another area. In that sense, I doubt if anyone is "normal" in every area.

I expect most artists are *not* normal, they're toward the pointy (high skill / ability level) end of a normal curve that measures artistic ability / skill. However you measure that...

Any artist can be better if they look like an artist! The weirder the better. An insurance salesperson on the other hand should not look like an artist.

No Abbey I do not mean to say that wild artsey pop look is the style of artists without merit. I think artist set the fashion and trends though. You are a free spirit anyway I'm guessing. I'd love to see you out in your coolest!

A rock star needs to stand out like so many have and do starting with Elvis the king of rock' roll. There used to be a sort of cliche' that a painter had to wear a cap & bell like the court jesters of the Middle Ages who function as a "joker" figure in psychology.

What ever "role" we play or mask one wears which expresses something important which just plain old conformity fails at is way cool.

Psychotic nose chains and Iroquoise hair cut still seem threatening and are not the threads of a finely refined painter & sculptor but looks artistic. A computer brained graphic artist never really gets seen by the public any more than writers do so they may want to hide any extravagance in their personalities behind a mask of conformity keeping a low profile which makes sense.

If you are going to be an artist I say then look and act like an artist....
Not an accountant or plumber!

"If you are going to be an artist I say then look and act like an artist.... Not an accountant or plumber!"

And how exactly does an artist act? This just goes back to the original premise, there is no real "normal" way for a person to be, let alone an artist. Some of those accountants and plumbers are artists on the side. I'm a mechanical designer....and an artist. How exactly am I supposed to look and act? The answer, I can only look and act like me, which has little to with being an artist or mechanical designer.

I think "normal" should be defined as functioning. If you're conscious and reasonably self-sufficient, keeping busy in a productive way, and not harming others in the process, then you're normal. Looks and quirks aren't part of the equation. I know some REALLY quirky accountants and plumbers.

Just be true to yourself. That makes you an artist, regardless if your medium is paint, or bricks and mortar. When we're comfortable in our own skin, we can access creativity without the barriers of expectation.

Yea...true as hell. Artists are anyone but to live they have to be someone else at work like a cop. But when they practice their art they can be free to wear a different hat or nothing! All of course in private. But it can be true that some of the artists who are very successful are not distinguishable from a Wall street banker and some from a homeless
psychotic or neurotic. Both fields of endeavor harbor neurotics. The healthiest artists are the ones who are probably working very hard at getting organized and so well that they never go into a pretentious daze. A clown may look like a banker after he takes his outfit off and stops performing.

The "Words's Greatest Authority" professor Irwin Corey is an artist who looks like a professor!

https://youtu.be/PJIvBeVKoQA

Stereotyping is not cool as an Artist. David K agreed. this discussion is way too superficial. who cares how you look i would just paint the darnn thing and create.
waste of my time to come on here.

When I was young I thought accountants were a strange group. Plumbers, teachers, weathermen, the lunch lady too. Come to think of it I thought the bus driver was kind of strange too.

You go Abbie!

Back to topic, Both work and lifestyle are seldom all that interesting. In other words most artist create little that goes outside of the box. Most artist also blend in with others quite well, in other words they don't stand out in any fashion......Normal.

" in other words they don't stand out in any fashion......Normal"

Very true, I don't stand out at all. People are always surprised to find out I'm an artist, (or maybe I'm not, depending your definition) . It's not that I'm hiding anything or pretending to fit in, this is just the way that I am.

The funny thing is that as a society we fight to blend in and yet many feel that being "normal" is a bad thing. David King, you are you, hard to beat that! Just a quick edit to this, David the way you handle paint and color is rather exceptional!

Normal people are usually scared of me.
But I also live in Utah, where normal people terrify me.

Are you trying to say that artists put on their pants one leg at a time?

They have to pump gas, pay taxes, deal with being placed on hold, help their kids with homework,call their Mom on Mother's Day, watch the speed limit, watch their cholesterol, watch their weight, wind their watch, buy underwear.....shocking!

An artist with purple hair and a nose ring isn't that abnormal. A CEO of a Fortune 500 company might be considered a bit "unique" if they show up to the board meeting sporting dreadlocks.

But Ronald, now that you are grown up and made this discovery. Is it disappointing to you? Were you expecting more? Was it like discovering the true identity of Santa?

Maybe some really great artists have had a desire to be normal so badly that they go insane when a normal life continues elude them.

What great great famous artists does anyone know of whom you consider to be normal by conservative standards? I can't think of any who are normal because of the enormous layers of complexity an artistic personality encompasses. Many can't fight off their left hand which subconsciously is trying to chock them to death because the other hand eventually isn't strong enough and looses the battle.

There are many artistic personalities who due to their peculiar temperament became national political leaders and were not in appearance very normal in anything.

Conservative standards would be slightly right of normal wouldn't it?

I think the problem might lay in the schooling. One school pushes you out the door with a degree and says "now remember, this piece of paper doesn't guarantee you anything, you have to go out and earn your place in society".

The other type of school pushes one out the door with a piece of paper and says "Now remember, you are special, you went to this school, that means you are something else. Don't forget how special and above normal you are" And then when reality sinks in eventually the student is surprised by all of the normalcy around them.

Conservative standards may bee to the tight and liberal to the left but the median would be the judgement point then.

Being "special" is crap yes I agree. I have often heard people say of others I know that "they are special". Makes me feel inadequate at first. I do not have a college degree(except for the P.H.D. one) and have realized all the closed doors closed and locked to me as I look back on my career choices and artistic endeavors. But there are so many who are in a very comfortable zone residing behind that degree of theirs and I say fine but I will never get in a position of employment where some degreed people will assume power over me if I can help it. Their job in relation to me would be to allow my freedom of expression.

So then there are levels of "normal" even insane people when we say "this person is your typical and normal psychopath". But to stand out in anything the personality and performance of an artist must be way above normal.

igrc: P.H.D. post hole digger

"What great great famous artists does anyone know of whom you consider to be normal by conservative standards"

By being great they are already not normal, using the outliers in this discussion doesn't work. However there are many great artists that were neither flamboyant nor psychotic, at least no more so than the rest of us.

There was a good editorial in paper today that talked about Ivy League schools and what they offer is basically the bragging rights about getting in. The diploma from these schools is virtually guaranteed as they have a lot of support for students. The courses they teach are nothing mythical. They read the same books everyone else does. But because they are so selective, just getting in is what makes the student "special".

Now with online learning available - what becomes of these "special" appointments? That was the gist of the editorial. Lots of money at stake from people seeking this above normal status.

Group survival is built into our DNA so there is only so far from normal people can go without becoming a hermit.

" so there is only so far from normal people can go without becoming a hermit"

Maybe I'm not so "normal" then. lol

In the army I was assigned to a unit known as the 10th Special Forces Airborne located in Bad Toelz, Germany. Although I was just a normal soldier with the 2nd Armored Cavalry.These SFs were indeed unique and taught me well at the time. I was also an artist then painting jeeps and tank numerals, camouflage and murals in the mess hall.

I used to hate to go to bar-b-ques held quite often by some friends of mine. All everyone talked about was their mortgage percentage rate and their newest car. Who the heck cares? This is the type of personality I think of when I hear "normal". Also the women would all talk about the best cleaning products (I kid you not), and their latest furniture acquisition. I thought I would lose my mind.

Give me an "eccentric" any day and I'll follow that person around rather than the suburban yuppie trying to impress his fellow tribesmen with his latest sports car. I shudder to think of how much very uncomfortable time I spent among them wanting to run screaming from the house. I'm not a "social gathering" type of person. Give me someone else with a camera that doesn't want to talk, they just get into the "zone" and I would love to go out with them, where there's no need to impress each other.

Too bad we don't live near each other Mary, I'd take my sketchbooks and you your camera and we'd have a pleasant time. I hate social gatherings as well, mainly because I just can't stand crowds. I think maybe I'm just overwhelmed by too much stimulus, when it gets noisy with lots of different conversations going on I have to escape.

I guess that's another way I'm not normal, I've never had a mortgage or a car payment, (or any new furniture). The newest car I ever bought was 9 years old, but it had over 116k miles on it. My last three cars have been ex police cars too, so I guess that makes me a little odd as well. lol

Well, David, I have a 6 year old Focus. My previous car was a 10 year old Focus (bought new) and before that a T-Bird (bought new) I sold to my nephew at 300,000 miles. He promptly killed it. In other words, I drive them until they die. Never was one to try to "keep up appearances". Boooring.

And yeah, that would be nice. I have nobody around here to go out with, and there are some places I would like to go take some night shots, but I don't want to wander out there with pricey camera equipment by myself.

And for the record, some of my furniture is about 120 years old (inherited).

I don't know what normal is - I think, maybe, I almost know what my normal is.

David - you are on this forum so you must enjoy socializing. That's not hermit behavior.

Besides the Blues Brothers drove an old police car so that's completely mainstream.

Yeah, but Edward, he doesn't have to ask you to leave when he wants to be alone LOL.

"Yeah, but Edward, he doesn't have to ask you to leave when he wants to be alone LOL."

lol That might be the key, I can walk away from the computer any time. lol Also, it's much easier to deal with socializing on an internet forum, I'm not trapped and there aren't 50 people trying to talk over each other, it's much more casual. Even so I go through phases with it. I sometimes don't check in here for days, then other days I spend way too much time here (like today). I recently stopped using another artist forum where I had something like 16K posts, I just stopped, don't know why, just decided I was done with it, my activity there was tapering off anyway. I guess I decided the forum had stopped being useful, I've quit using other forums for the same reason.

I've known thousands of people in my life, and by all accounts, very few fall within what's traditionally been considered "normal" territory. At a glance, the vast majority have work-a-day lives, average families, predictable politics, conventional spirituality, etc. Whenever I first meet a person, I marvel at how normal they seem: content, settled, well-adjusted. But it only takes a short period of acquaintance to reveal that most norms are whackadoodles in disguise. I mean that in a nice way (mostly), because I'm whackadoodle too. But some turn out to have really cringey personal lives, extreme beliefs or prejudices, dark skeletons in the closet, horrible insecurities, and so on. Behind the white picket fences, most people are struggling somewhere between keeping their sanity to resigning to the inevitability of a slow-motion trainwreck of a life.

I think it's probably okay to work on having so-called "normalcy" in one's life. Something to keep us tethered to reality and to each other. But it makes me truly uncomfortable to know that so many people compare their lives unfavorably to some perceived norm. Their lives aren't like a sitcom from the 50s, so they need medication, therapy, divorce, or whatever. The world would be so much nicer a place if we realized we're no less normal than our neighbors.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must go make myself a fresh tin-foil hat. Mine is nearly worn out.

Artists are not normal. Artists have enhanced artistic superpowers which enable them to create the illusion of 3rd dimensional objects in the 2nd dimension.

Michelle, well said. I agree with you.
However then, normal is hiding behind the picket fence, while the artist airs their dirty laundry in the street.

Well, I just took this test and nope, I am not "normal". Hmmm

http://www.sanityscore.com/

OCD? Ok, I like my images at even numbers but..................just saying.

I've always been drawn to the different, the misfits, those that don't fit in. I also am interested in those that artistically decorate their bodies...beautiful armfuls of tattoos, expressive piercings, unconventional modes of dress, interestingly colored hair and haircuts. Some people make their body their canvas, and that is their artistic expression. So I say dress how you want (have tatts you can cover, and a way you can tone down the faux hawk if you have a corporate job), make the kind of art you want...be free, and let others be free too.

I found a pin on Pinterest that is a picture of two girls whispering to each other, and another girl standing off in the distance. One says "She's an artist"...and the other responds "Oh that explains it. I just thought she was weird".

I thought tattoos were normal? I am wrong?

Dave

Joy, my guess is that test would show some kind of "abnormality" in everybody that took it. I think it's normal to have at least one trait that is "abnormal". Our differences make the world interesting. The things that interest me don't interest you and vice versa, but there's always some overlap in interest, there is almost always some common ground that most can agree on, maybe that's where "normal" is.

Normal, abnormal, special, unique, artist, these things are just words, People are more than words and more than what words can describe so as soon as we try to describe who and what we are as human beings with words, we are at a great limiting disadvantage from the start. Better if we let our work speak for itself when it comes to art or artist.

David, Georgianna posted the link to the test. But I do agree with what you said. Can you imagine if everyone looked the same, liked the same things, made the same kind of art? So boring!

Everything across the entire spectrum of the human condition is normal. It happens.

Dave

Yea bull!

I now have 5 tattoos and my hair is purple with different coloured stripes

I look like a nutcase but I DO NOT CARE and yesterday, again when someone asked what I did and I said I am an artist, he just sighed and said 'I knew it had to be something like that'

Me happy

I am growing my hair longer, like I am from the 1960s and in fact I am.

Dave

David try a man bun. All the rage these days with hipsters. Until your hair grows out you can purchase an add on one for around $15. Instant hipness.
...

Abbie - lol

Abbie, you would fit in perfectly in San Francisco. It's "anything goes" around here :)

I love deviant sects.

Artists are normal? I don't know about that. Maybe when they are in a group of non artist they are normal but if one observes artist in a group of artist, normal is not the term that I would use.


Clichés is the word that comes to mind.

As I stated, most artists in our society do not want to be referred to as "Normal". However when you go through their work you will find that is exactly what they are. Most artists and photographers do not stand out at all. It is the feeling of, I have seen that many times before. I noticed that most of the artists making comments are only talking about their personal appearance in other words surface stuff.

Tattoos, piercings and the ilk are just fashion fads. Interesting that some think they are not normal! How many shops are there in your area that do that kind of thing? Lots I would guess! Falls under the I'm a Pepper you're a Pepper wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too? Be original, be one of the crowd syndrome.

Ronald,

My art is totally normal. Paradoxically the work is very unique. Ultimately if everyone buys it, it becomes ubiquitous.

And yes you have seen it all before. lol

Dave

Far from being unique, scarification has been used by mankind for thousands of years to identify individuals as a part of a larger group. From tribes to gangs to groups of like individuals.

Never thought of scarifcation? sacrafication?

I think you are still discussing tattoos?

Dave

The case could be made for anything that it's been done before, maybe it looks a little different or is a different style or whatever, the message is still the same that mankind has been pumping out for centuries, for all our "progress" as a whole we haven't really changed much on a fundamental level. That's why you see so many "artists" doing things for shock value thinking they are being unique, but it's just a stunt or it's carrying an old message. Nothing to see here, move along.

Nonsense.

David King, I do agree with you to a point. We are fundamentally the same creature we were ten or more thousand years ago. Many of the things you might think are being done for shock value however actually are being done for conceptual and philosophical reasons. Not to say there are not shock artist out there. Not everything is the same as the past, for example, population density has greatly increased. these increases create new issues for humans to deal with. Weapons are another area of concern. We have the ability to largely wipe ourselves out, hard to do with rocks and spears. Technology has made the world much smaller in some ways as this site can attest to. As times change so does the human experience and the need for different ways to express the human condition.

Ron, when you use the term artist, are you talking about thoughs who call themselves artists, thoughs who are called by others artist or thoughs who both call themselves artist and are called by others artist?
There are a lot of self appointed artist who are only that. This fact skews the actual nature of the groups of artist.

I am currently in a group with this cross section. My observations of the nature of the individuals within the group may give some insight to you question.

At the core it's all the same though, just more of it.

I can't debate whether someone is an artist or not so I guess if they call themselves an artist, for the sake of this thread, they are one. David, perhaps.

"The case could be made for anything that it's been done before,"

Except going to the moon. That was new.

Ron, in that case, your question and any answers give is useless. If you ask a question about a group, you must be able to define the common link. By your own admission, this conclusion must be correct.
It is my belief it is easier for you not to acknowledge the three eliments mentioned than to actually acknowledge them.

Drew the debate is not about who calls whom an artist.

"Except going to the moon. That was new."

However our fascination with that lifeless rock goes back to the origins of man, it's the only reason we went there, just a different kind of object worship, it's just that technological advances allowed us to take it to that extreme.

Ron, you are absolutely right, it's about the normality or abnormality of a set of individual with a common thread that you cannot or will not clarify. No debate, just clarification.
Should the self appointed artist who are only that be included in the assessment of the group?

Just like "normal" the word "Artist" is impossible to define. Unless the profession of "Artist" gets organized to the point where anybody that wants to call themselves an artist must get certified just like lawyers and doctors the definition of "Artist" will always be up for debate.

David, I hear what you are saying BUT Ron on many occasions has pointed out the fact the he has a masters in fine art. With this fact, he very well has the capacity to understand my question is not about art but how to assess a group who claim to share a common trait.

The three subcategories are real and effects the assessment.

David king is correct. I must say that not everyone who walks on this earth calls themselves an artist but as I stated the debate is not, who is or who is not, but rather are artist normal? By that I mean do they sort of float down the center of the road? I say yes based on how few artist are even trying to push the packet. Far too many are merely concerned with regurgitation, mostly for some market. Artists as a whole are a far less creative group than I would have ever imagined, by my way of thinking that is rather sad. Drew, if someone makes art I see no problem with their calling themselves an artist if they wish.

I think it's pretty normal to like to paint and draw.

I don't think that "likes to paint and draw" is probably particularly correlated with very many other human characteristics other than, perhaps, having reasonably good vision, and enough eye-hand coordination to control the art supplies.

It's also pretty normal to have no interest in painting and drawing.

"Far too many are merely concerned with regurgitation, mostly for some market."

"I am so sick of landscapes", is what I was told last week by a local gallery curator.

Drew, your categories are no better than my definition. First category , those who call themselves artist. (That is basically mine). Second category , those who are called artist by others. (Who are these others?) and third , those who call themselves artist (First category and those who are called artist by the mystery group called others.) I still think the only way to look at it is if you create art and call yourself an artist, you are.

Ronald, first and for most you are making the case that the relivance of your question is directly related to a personal understanding of art and thoughs whom you have been exposed who fall in said subcategories.

With this said, artist whom I've been exposed to who are natural artist but avoid labeling themselves as Artist are self confident and socially well rounded. The more skilled, the more adaptable.

The second, the artist who are naturally skilled artist and love the title of artist have the tendency to be megalomaniacs with tendencies toward narcissism.

The third, the self appointed artist are victims of academia's inability to define art and are drawn into the hero worshipping academia has manufactured. These are the largest subgroup and have skill that is learned through repetitive copying and heavy reliant on standards and references.

"I still think the only way to look at it is if you create art and call yourself an artist"

But then you have to define "Art". And round and round we go.....

Oh well!

Artists are normal?

No we are not, and I'm proud of that fact :-))

Cheers, Barbara

LOL

Once again for an odd social reason many wish to be abnormal but aside from a few quirks are not. Mundane, uncreative work is much more common than creative work. Yes Drew that is my opinion and I stand by it. Not sure as to the why you are going after artist who bothered to learn their craft and what the basics of art are all about through an educational process but I would say it is much more difficult to be truly creative without a solid foundation. This foundation can be achieved in many ways but is expedited through a organized platform of study.

One quick side note, odd how the ones who get involved in threads such as this are not the ones I would label in my mind as being uncreative or boring or gasp, normal! I think the reason might be these artist like to think about stuff.

"Mundane, uncreative work is much more common than creative work."
Unfortunately this is the normal product that is being churned out of art academia today. It is the artistic norm.
I'm currently back at the University working on my second engineering degree . This one is in art engineering. Yes, art engineering.
Engineering, architecture and interior adornment were the foundation of the greatest advancements in western art. This was acomplished by polymaths such as filippo brunelleschi, michelangelo buonarroti and leonardo da vinci. Science and logic became the foundation of the greatest artistic evolution of all time.
Fine art academia has forgotten this foundation and science academia are just as guilty through pushing STEM and leaving out art.

What is abnormal are the steriotyped roles that many who take on the title of artist perpetuate.

Art education is suffering. If science academia recognize the importance and relivance of art as minors in there major degree programs, art itself would incur a long needed boost in our society and artists would become less marginalized.

Oh yea, right mate!

If the only prerequisite for being an artist is acceptance of the label, then yes, artists are extremely normal.

Interesting major Drew. Don't agree with the majority of what you are saying but non the less always enjoy your outlook.

Ron, I'm afraid that you are in denial. It is easier for you to submit to the dogma of art academia than to acknowledge that it is dogma. I'm in the process of retraining each and every art academic I have interactions with. That is quite a few now and the lights are being tuned back on in their formerly brainwashed heads.
This is easy because my aproach is to let the results of my works speak for themselves. Removing the mistisism and replacing it with logic shifts the left brain dominance to a right brain, left brain equilibrium.
Ultimately personality balance with artist is what this thread is all about. ..is it not?

Right drew, please redirect the direction of art history. Power to you dude.

That artists work from the right brain in theory has been thrown out a long time ago. The brain does not center left or right.

Creating and thinking are done throughout the brain.

Dave

Whew...so glad someone said that. Thanks Dave!

Like your work Drew but not sure artist are going to be flocking your way in droves, sort of a fool's errand in any case. Did not work for DeChirico in his futile attempt to revive the Renaissance, despite signing his work "Pictor Optimus". The Pre Raphaelites were another failed effort to redirect history. As I said good luck!

Anne,

Shocking I tell you, shocking. Who'da thunk it?

Dave

Am I the only normal artist here?

LMAO

Dave

Ron, I'm dealing with several MFAs and they too have similar conflicts like you. They, are afraid to even define what the Art term in the proudly warn title of Master of Fine Art. Yet MEEs, and MMEs have no problem explaining what the Electrical or Mechanical terms in thier titles mean. This is because of political correctness.
It is not my intent to draw hordes to view my work. It is my intent to change the views of educators in the sciences that the creative aspects founded by polymaths with artistic histories benefits the sciences. Even recent historical figures like Richard Feynman recognized the importance of artistic creativity for it's own sake and it's scientific relivance. It's a lot harder to convince the scientific community of this than it is to convince the art community because of the perception that artist are nonconforming emotional bohemians.
Why I know this is steriotypical mumbo jumbo. Many engineering techniques and mathematical forms are found in the arts . This is why I push art minors as a ligitamitt minor in the BS and MS degree programs.

Drew, I am dealing with several people with Doctorates in your field who have similar conflicts like you, gosh it feels good to be revamping the world!

Ron, you are saying the world.....I'm just deal with my current situation. and i find you are somewhat open minded and you are relivant to my circumstances in this matter. Yet you offer nothing but reason for failure. Or is it you want me to fail at promoting art minors is BS programs?

Drew, no idea what you just said. Here is the thing, yes I have an art education, no I am not brainwashed. Yes I have a fair grasp over what is going on currently and has gone on in the past to lead us to where we are. No, I do not love all work being done today. No, I do not love all work produced in the past. Yes, I do love some work being done today, yes I do love some work done in the past. Now for my true confession; After I have completed an academic program it always took me a year or so before I felt I could paint in my way. the reason for this is that there is so much information given to you in such a short time it takes awhile to filter it and pick and choose what you think of it. I do feel that once I was able to filter the information that ultimately my work improved each time. These days 32 years after finishing a MA program and 25 years since finishing the MFA program, I study art on my own. It is my passion and I find it fascinating, that to me is not a conflict. You will go your way and I will go my way, sorry if you feel the art world is so messed up but I feel it is stronger than it ever has been throughout history.

Drew and Ron

Although I am currently so new here I probably shouldn't say a word, but I will anyway...it pains me to see the misunderstanding that occurs between the arts and "sciences. "STEM" should be "STEAM", but I have heard from colleagues that the "STEAM" movement is just a way to find other ways and means to incorporate the arts into the science and math curriculum, " minus" the art educators. A sad day that will be. Just the other day at a committee meeting a science educator announced that he would love to incorporate the arts and "exploit" them. I could go on and on and on...

I have listened to hours of people arguing over the true defInition of "art", and that is what counts. What "art" is, truly has no definition because it is defined by each one of us individually and what we have experienced in our own lives. It is constantly changing for each one of us and that is what makes it universal.

Well put Anne.

Left or right brain, I just try to draw on every brain cell I have.. and keep it simple.

"Each of our hemispheres think about different things, they care about different things, and dare I say, they have very different personalities" ~ Jill Taylor

If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend it...

Ron, took you a while to get some of those bubbles out of your brain after you obtained you MFA? You may think we go different ways but your thread posts, your responses to your own ambiguous nature and your sincerity is guinuine. They way you respond is both helpful and insightful. It is my job to advance the art relevance in STEM and STEM in art academia.
To dismiss this is to create barriers, to embrace this is to remove barriers.

Drew, as I said after each program there was a period of filtering information prior to being able to do my paintings again. Science and art have been tied together several times in history but that is not the end all of art. Art is a multifaceted discipline which is one problem with caging it with a strict definition.

Now Ron, I feel a little of the frost melting. yes, your statement is one that I agree with.
if the normal/ abnormal perception is an issue with artist, do you think that artist's real likelihood of poverty which often leads to drug use, alcoholism, and a variety of mental illnesses be curtailed if artist were trained in a employable field and actually become gainfully employed while they develop their art in an environment of stability?

If you have a basket of apples and another basket of bananas... both baskets contain fruit, and each basket of fruit appears "normal". Now take one of the apples and put it in the basket of bananas. The apple then appears odd and stands out from the other fruit? It's all relative.

A group of bikers and a group of school children... Each group is what you would expect to see separately, however when one is found in the other group, we perceive that as a bit unique.

I have high functioning spectrum disorder. For those that know me know that is normal for me. If I were in public my ism's would not be seen as "normal". So to define normal is subjective from person to person.

I agree with those who think the world would be boring if we were all the same. Drew we have been doing this for at least four years, sometimes we agree and sometimes disagree but I always enjoy the threads when you are around, makes me think! Normal, as pointed out is a relative term and like so much we discuss on these threads impossible to truly define. Truth be told I like far more art than I dislike since even work that is not my cup of tea holds some interest for me. One of the things I like about teaching K-6th grade art is seeing their development over the years. Art for the very young is not about a product but rather about the voyage. I tend, as an adult to be rather product oriented, the end result is the biggie for me, and I often wonder if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Ron i appreciate your en-site as well. I am going after this degree so that I too enter into the educational profession. I intend to teach both the logic base coerces and art. whether I end up with a MFA or a MAT is not yet decided. these art professors I am dealing with are both taken back by my directness but actually are more respectful toward me than I expected.The students are i believe product of the first wave of the body snatchers. NOT my generation nor my piers ...LOL! so far, the professors have been encourage and cooperative and are fast tracking my advancement. this degree that I am getting will be the first of its kind at UNF and having to deal with both the department heads of the engineering and the fine arts college is a challenge in it self. sorry I use you as a Ginny- pig to test the water but it is for the betterment of art. the school curriculum in this country are so quick to cut art educational budgets and my whole premise regarding justification for such a degree is to promote art as relevant minors in the pursuit of bachelor degrees in the STEM base disciplines.

Seriously Drew it sounds quite interesting, let me know how it goes! My art teaching position is about as secure as one can have in that it is in the teaching contract that the students get art, music and PE. I am down to anywhere from 5-10 years till I retire, though I could technically retire now. Time is the draw back to my employment, security , benefits and money are the pluses.

How do you grade your students? Perhaps it's none of my business but if it were me doing the grading it would be based on interest and participation.

I think if artists in general weren't so full of themselves we would not be having this discussion, Ronald I agree, artist are not special and I tend to believe they are as normal or abnormal as any other person regardless of profession, skills, and natural or learned talents. No man is an Island.

Well Vincent that is an interesting question. I see a bit over 900 students each week. We have two grades we give, one is based on effort and the other is based on skill. Quite honestly I am a very easy grader since I disagree with giving students the age I work with grades in art at all.

Joe,

That video is dated Feb. 2008, almost all of it or all of it is considered not true, not valid for several years now.

The science, the ability to have insights into how the brain functions were nil in 2008. We, the human race, are only now entering into valid studies of how the human brain works and the structures therein.

Dave

David, you are correct.
However, there is more to that video than an attempt to assign brain functionality.
I find the polarity in perspective to be much more fascinating.

Also, it is still believed that the hemispheres perform different functions, it's just now understood that people don't necessarily favor one side over the other.

Professor Irwin Corey has a non-grading policy. It seems that if anyone makes it to class more trance a semester they are good to go on into the world imparting to others their theories and delusions about the world of art.

Joe,

The parts and regions and smaller parts of the brain share functionality. It is really not a hemispherical matter.

My auditory, like yours, splits up what is heard into small parts that for want of a better word rattle around into all sorts of places in the brain, not just left or right, not even across the human race primarily left or right. Not divided up by emotions or logic either.

For me, my auditory for languages suffered from birth. My auditory for music and maths is extremely good. But there is no primary part of the brain that makes that reality. It is all of the brain.

Dave

Vincent, Ron,

We had a very loose grading system at UCONN, effort and skill, but grades for the class at times were set aside. And subjectivity played a roll.

I engaged my professors a great deal. The classes were small. If I sat back I might have been a B student instead of an A student. But that is what sitting back will get you.

Dave

Going back to an earlier post:

"I am so sick of landscapes", is what I was told last week by a local gallery curator."

For every kind of art there is, I'm sure there is some gallery curator who is sick of it. If an art gallery curator says s/he's sick of landscapes, and you like making landscapes... all that means is it may be time to find a different gallery.


*******
RE: What we know about how the brain works: It's fascinating stuff. The progress in the field of brain research goes a little slower than we might like because of the ethical considerations for using humans as subjects in experiments.

Grades in art classes are almost always a bit subjective. Effort and skill get you a long way in most classes in any subject, grades or no grades.

Where I went to school, we had grades, the grad schools tend to want transcripts with grades. Except...

I took one class at Hampshire College, which does not grade. The teachers provide individualized written evaluations for each student in each class instead. It was a liberating experience not to have to write a paper for a major author course. At that point I wasn't learning a lot from writing papers, I could write almost any paper as an expansion of the five-paragraph essay. I turned one of the plays we read into a comic book. The teacher appreciated it, I don't think any of his students had tried that before. He commented that the problems you have to solve to create a comic book are very similar to the array of problems you have to solve to stage the play: costuming, setting, working out how the characters interact, etc.

Later in my career, I've taken a lot of classes, including rec center art classes with no grades, and professional development classes in other areas from other sources. You generally get out of them what you put into them. If you engage and take the learning process seriously, it doesn't show up on a transcript, it shows up in how much professional respect you get from others in your field.

I've met artists that look normal, speak well, and conform on every level well...as actors, but I have never seen my fellow artists as normal.

They are far more intelligent, passionate, problematic, struggling, mean spirited, caring, hyper vigilant, and I could go on an on, but normal? No way.

There are Two artists that are my gurus, it's Modigliani and Renoir. As a friend I would prefer Renoir, he was always so wise. On other hand I would be afraid of Modigliani, this guy was unpredictable. I would like to talk to them about art and their opinion about infinity, about their Gods.

Artists that make money are normal people; artists that make no money are just stubborn.

I have been watching and reading this discussion from the beginning. One thing I come out with is that ALL of you protesting how "different you are" because you are an "artist", merely proves how so very normal you really are. Shrugs.

Maciej,

Welcome on board. We make work on the same side of the street, but one of us is walking on the sidewalk and the other down the street.

I do not know which is which. It is amazing how using the Mona Lisa outcomes can be so different.

Dave

Richardo,

An artist in his gallery yesterday explained to me how the better a work of art is the harder it is to sell it.

Is that true?

Dave

"but I have never seen my fellow artists as normal. They are far more intelligent, passionate, problematic, struggling, mean spirited, caring, hyper vigilant, and I could go on an on, but normal? No way."

this is absolutely laughable. A typical megalomaniac / narcissistic characteristic previously mentioned.(characteristic 2)

Who are the artist?

1. natural artist but avoid labeling themselves as Artist are self confident and socially well rounded. The more skilled, the more adaptable.

2. the artist who are naturally skilled artist and love the title of artist have the tendency to be megalomaniacs with tendencies toward narcissism.

3. the self appointed artist are victims of academia's inability to define art and are drawn into the hero worshiping academia has manufactured. These are the largest subgroup and have skill that is learned through repetitive copying and heavy reliant on standards and references.

I am only me.

Dave

@Drew, thank you for having me all figured out. I didn't know I was a narcissist or megalomaniac, but now I do. I like the idea of being naturally skilled, but I did go to college and when I was in art school, most of the people around me had more natural ability. My professors were really kind, thankfully.

As far as normal and being an artist, I know one person that makes her living by painting.

I know of other artists that make a decent living, but I don't know them personally so for this conversation, I'll focus on the one I know.

She may get up at weird times to paint, forget to bathe, make messes that can be described as "the house being totaled." She may forget to eat, won't answer the door, phone, go to the bathroom, gets depressed, or super happy, falls asleep in the middle of the day OR floor with all her pets on top (she likes her pets more than people), gets up at weird times, realizes she's starving, but has a screwdriver instead, the curtains are always drawn, she smells bad, but suddenly realizes "this is not normal." Thusly a few hours, she'll go and act normal, open the door and curtains, clean up, smile at people and get a few supplies only to return to the abnormal repeat of this paragraph. Sound normal to any of you artist's out there? I bet it does.

I'm glad for the moment, I'm not her.

Lisa,

That is the woman for me. Is she on my bus route? I only date women on my bus route.

Dave

@Dave, thank you. LOL, leave it to you to have that response!

You two would be a great couple, that I have no doubt of.

We might straighten each other out. U never know.

Dave

"@Drew, thank you for having me all figured out. I didn't know I was a narcissist or megalomaniac, but now I do."-Lisa K

Response :

"but I have never seen my fellow artists as normal."-Lisa
Lisa, I never referred to you as being Narcissistic nor having meglamania but it appears that you inserted yourself into this hypocritical catigory. Was it a Freudian slip or was this intended?

David, in fact I was thinking about you when the hypocritical catigory of the humble artist genius who does not refer to his/her self as an artist came to mind.

The facts are these:
If there are artist in this world of ours then
1 there are artist who do not refer to themselves as artist
2 there are artist who refer to themselves as artist
3 there are non-artist who refer to themselves as artist.

If there are negative abnormality associated with artist then attempt to attach the negative normalities to one or more of the know catigories and see if they are true for some of the time, most of the time, all of the time or non of the time.

Not sure, Drew. Thanks for clarifying. I don't want to be labeled or categorized, but the quoting of my words made me think...

Thanks for making me think. Maybe artists are normal. I did take a lot of psychology classes but I got very bored with it all.

Smiling and bathing are for narcissists.
Real artists scowl and stink.

lol...now that was funny

I'm not sure I'm an artist or normal, just a person, one of billions.

And I'm special. I have always been special and I will die special, we are all like snowflakes :) Hi David, hi everyone. It's a great pleasure to be here