To me, an artist in this century is someone that creates something that is art – which, by my definition, is anything that can inspire further creativity. Unlike my colleague Audriana, I believe that artists can create a large amount of a single work, such as Liechtenstein’s prints and Duchamp’s “ready-mades.” Design has become part of aesthetics, and with it, art; practical objects and even typefaces – such as the @ sign – have become part of the collection of the Museum of Modern Art. People once thought of as “artisans” cannot be left out from the artist community.
The artist in the current form does not usually have a patron, but does rely on people, such as those who run galleries, to get work displayed and sold. It is possible for artists in this day and age to not commit their life’s work to art, instead being something of dilettantes. However, being a professional artist is often deemed on the fringes of society, something dating back to the Beatniks of the 1960s.
——–
On the subject of photography, I believe it is more a technique of capturing a moment in time – a moment which itself may be artistic – than a work of art itself. The piece that captures this in the “Original Copy” exhibit is Gabriel Orozco’s “Cats and Watermelons.” This piece is a picture of watermelons, presumably in a supermarket, topped with cans of cat food. While, in my opinion, is no real opportunity to take anything from and make something creative out of the image captured, that is neither here nor there; what is important is if there can be something that can be taken from the picture itself. I cannot find a way that it can – the picture, and the act of photographing something, is different from the image itself; if a picture is art than the optical nerve must be art, as well.
Interesting comments. You might enjoy reading Allan Kaprow essay: The Education of the Un Artist Part II (The Blurring of Art and Life, ed. Jeff Kelley 1993). Kaprow tells us that “Non-art..is Lifelike, and “like” points to similarities.” The images in photography you refer in your comment is part of the Conceptual art movement of the 1970’s. Another way of explaining it is, if you may re created in thought without preforming or making physically. Art until that point imitated mostly life, the attempt at this point is to reverse the trend and like Duchamp introduce snow shovels into the museum. If it could be categorized “Art” is a different issue.
In your second paragraph you run yourself into a black-hole. We will revisit that thought in class one more time.