In the past posts, many people touched upon the idea that an artist does not require prior training and that an artist should not be limited to what society tells them. I feel in some way that that may be true. But not always.
As Margaretta replied, the way society views art is constantly changing because society’s view on what is aesthetic is changing. I recall seeing another post where Professor Weinroth commented that a pianist cannot perform without 15 years of training and a dancer cannot perform without 15 years of training. I must say, that to some extent that is correct. To be able to master the technical skills of any art takes a vast period of time. Hence, I cannot fully agree with the comment that a person can wake up one morning, discover a talent for let’s say, painting, and become an artist. Why? Because there are so many important technical aspects of any type of art. A lot of what art/dance/music majors study may not be relevant to their remaining career BUT for the most part, the basics and the general’s will be extremely relevant. Hence, it may take more than ten years to master the art.
In the 21st century, there are so many artists. It’s hard to place a set of qualifications for an artist because there are so many talented people out there. But, I think that an artist is one who can fully express his/her ideas or intentions without necessarily being influenced by what is going on in the current society as well as be somewhat aesthetically pleasing.
Glad you are trying to catch up with your work.
A note on content: There are artists that are interested in commenting on their society, or reject aesthetic values. Let us differentiate between “being artistic” and “being an artist”.