Do celebrities deserve to be called "Artists?"

[jon1jt]

i saw a web advertisement of sorts in Yahoo stating the following:


Popular Music Artist Photos

Jessica Simpson
Shakira
Britney Spears
Avril Lavigne
Beyoncé
Rihanna



do you think celebrities deserve to be routinely referred to as ARTISTS? why or why not?

here are some quotes from Plato to consider on the subject of Art:

"There are three arts which are concerned with all things: one which uses, another which makes, and a third which imitates them."

"Art calls for complete mastery of techniques, developed by reflection within the soul."

"We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth."

[Lote-Tree]

i saw a web advertisement of sorts in Yahoo stating the following:

Popular Music Artist Photos

Jessica Simpson
Shakira
Britney Spears
Avril Lavigne
Beyoncé
Rihanna

do you think celebrities deserve to be routinely referred to as ARTISTS? why or why not?


Yes. Why not?

Living a life is an art itself :-)

But as Oscar Wilde wrote: All art is useless.
That is why we admire it intensely :D

[Pensive]

Do celebrities deserve to be called "Artists?"
Surely. Why not?

[TheFifthElement]

I suppose it depends how you see art, but I'd say at the bare minimum they should write their own songs. If they write and perform their own songs then I would consider them to be artists, whether I like their work or not, if they don't write their own songs then they are just singers.

This leaves a bit of an anomoly for actors, though I suppose with acting they are only provided with the words and the rest is down to their own improvisation/interpretation, so in that respect all actors are artists (except Keanu Reeves, I'm pretty sure that what he does can't be referred to as acting ;) ).

[Lote-Tree]

I suppose it depends how you see art, but I'd say at the bare minimum they should write their own songs. If they write and perform their own songs then I would consider them to be artists, whether I like their work or not, if they don't write their own songs then they are just singers.


But they dance too. And they dance good - especially Beyonce :D
Dance is an art form?

[Pensive]

I suppose it depends how you see art, but I'd say at the bare minimum they should write their own songs. If they write and perform their own songs then I would consider them to be artists, whether I like their work or not, if they don't write their own songs then they are just singers.

This leaves a bit of an anomoly for actors, though I suppose with acting they are only provided with the words and the rest is down to their own improvisation/interpretation, so in that respect all actors are artists (except Keanu Reeves, I'm pretty sure that what he does can't be referred to as acting ;) ).

But at least all of these mentioned here know the art (skill) of being famous! :p

[TheFifthElement]

But they dance too. And they dance good - especially Beyonce :D
Dance is an art form?

True, dance is an art form, but in the advert that jon1jt posted they were referred to as Music Artists.

Are you ready for the jelly Lote? ;)

[Lote-Tree]

True, dance is an art form, but in the advert that jon1jt posted they were referred to as Music Artists.

Are you ready for the jelly Lote? ;)

Ah OK. I guess I am ready for the jelly :-(

[SleepyWitch]

I suppose it depends how you see art, but I'd say at the bare minimum they should write their own songs. If they write and perform their own songs then I would consider them to be artists, whether I like their work or not, if they don't write their own songs then they are just singers.

This leaves a bit of an anomoly for actors, though I suppose with acting they are only provided with the words and the rest is down to their own improvisation/interpretation, so in that respect all actors are artists (except Keanu Reeves, I'm pretty sure that what he does can't be referred to as acting ;) ).
:lol: finally, someone who agrees with me :)

[Pensive]

Unpleasant music can be art too. :D Art is not always what appeals our aesthetic sense. There are chances that the same thing is attracting someone else.

[Niamh]

why not. most of them perform someone elses work the same way actors for stage and movies do.

(as for Keanu Reeves......He tries but hes just not dinner.)

[TheFifthElement]

why not. most of them perform someone elses work the same way actors for stage and movies do.

(as for Keanu Reeves......He tries but hes just not dinner.)

That's a fair point Niamh (and not just about Keanu!). You're right the same rules apply, but there is a distinction between someone who does something, and someone who's an artist. What is the distinction between an artist and a painter? Is it that the artist produces something original, whereas the painter just reproduces? I'm not sure, but I'm sure there is a distinction.

The example of an actor does present some problems, as it's difficult to identify what they do that is original, whereas I am sure that there are some actors who would be considered artists. I wonder if it's the actor that takes a role and makes it there own, therefore 'creating' a character, and so that in your mind any other actor that plays the particular role will seem an inferior copy. For example, in my mind there is only one Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins took that role and made it so that in the public mind Hannibal Lector would always been as he presented him, and whilst others may emulate, the figure in your mind would always be Anthony Hopkins (and he wasn't even the original Hannibal Lector). The same applies for other roles, there is only one Scarlet O'Hara, one Forrest Gump, and so on. The same would apply to a singer, I suppose.

In which case this seems to indicate that to be an artist there is a defining quality to what they do that separates it from the norm.

What do you think?...

[aabbcc]

Art is one of those undefineable (if such a word exists in English :D) words.

In my view - no. This reminds me of a never-ending conservatory debate of where is the limit between "intepret" and "artist" (speaking of music, of course).
The basic consesus we reached in that discussion was - whilst there is a lot of skill in quality intepretation, intepretation of other people's music is simply interpretation, not creation. You may play with variations as much as you wish, but if the music sheet in front of you contains the work that was originally not written by you, you remain interpret rather than artist.
Therefore, in order to create music as an artist, the music you perform must be yours. That, we agreed, was the line that separates interpret from artist, whilst they are both "musicians" in sense of dealing with music.

Apply the same to literature, the relation is pretty much the same between a writer and a critic (= an interpret of other people's writings) or a 'writer' composing a "typical product" whose contents are dictated by somebody else basically. Whilst there is a lot of skill involved in literary criticism, that is not art. Whilst it takes skill to write even a novel "by a scheme", if you write by a scheme, it is questionable at which point it ceases to be art.
Dance, then. If you dance by other person's choreography, you are interpret of other person's idea; dance on your own and you are artist.
Actors are often by definition interprets, as you shall notice, interpreting other person's ideas and playing the role the way they are told. What is involved here is skill of interpreting, not "artistic" skills of creating.

Though this is only one of the possible views on the topic, it is the one I tend to agree with most. Perhaps there is some snobbery involved (as my friend says, "I do not wish to share the title of 'music artist' with a bunch of celebrities who probably haven't got down the basics of solfeggio and harmony, and are simply singing what somebody else wrote for them, on a music somebody else composed!"), but I refuse to call many of those people artistists.

[rabid reader]

That's a fair point Niamh (and not just about Keanu!). You're right the same rules apply, but there is a distinction between someone who does something, and someone who's an artist. What is the distinction between an artist and a painter? Is it that the artist produces something original, whereas the painter just reproduces? I'm not sure, but I'm sure there is a distinction.

The example of an actor does present some problems, as it's difficult to identify what they do that is original, whereas I am sure that there are some actors who would be considered artists. I wonder if it's the actor that takes a role and makes it there own, therefore 'creating' a character, and so that in your mind any other actor that plays the particular role will seem an inferior copy. For example, in my mind there is only one Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins took that role and made it so that in the public mind Hannibal Lector would always been as he presented him, and whilst others may emulate, the figure in your mind would always be Anthony Hopkins (and he wasn't even the original Hannibal Lector). The same applies for other roles, there is only one Scarlet O'Hara, one Forrest Gump, and so on. The same would apply to a singer, I suppose.

In which case this seems to indicate that to be an artist there is a defining quality to what they do that separates it from the norm.

What do you think?...

I think that is exactly it, there art is in the creation of characters. When you are approached with such talented actors like Robin Williams who can actually tell you that the script is wrong my character would never say that or would say it more this way. These actors create these separate persona's and when they make it seem on screen or on stage that these personas are in fact they themselves, then the actor or actress has created a masterpiece. Your example of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector is the perfect example of an actors masterpiece. When one sees Anthony Hopkins in that role in every other role they give to Hopkins the attributes of intelligent, well read and analytical. I don't know Mr. Hopkins personally but I will carry this as my impression of him because of his role in the Lector trilogy.

The same with Tom Hanks and Forest Gump. From the movie and the character he protraited I will always attribute good naturness to him. That is the art of acting. When your character becomes so believable that their personality begins to over shadow your own, you as an actor have created a master piece.

When it comes to singing, I would have to say that singing on its own is not an art, but a tool used to create art. In the example of say Jessica Simpson being considered an artist, she is not really, as her music is written by others, her voice distorted by machines the only thing she really does is make a fool of her self in interviews and dance on a stage to another persons cography. She is easily replaceable and I would not consider her a contributor to the arts. Now for some of the others I don't know, because I stopped listening to Pop music about 10 years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised to see if they all fell into similar niches in the music world. A majority of these singers in modern society, seem to have been picked up at stripe clubs, just were told to do what I say and now are rolling in the millions. I would hardly call that art.

[Virgil]

I don't know if this was said above, but my feelings are that their art is what should be evaluated and relates to their status as artist. The fact that they are celebrities is incidental and neither adds or detracts from their art. I consider some pop stars (I'm thinking of musicians, but maybe even actors, and even a few writers) artists, but the ones you list Jon don't do it for me. At least the ones I recognize.

[Lote-Tree]

wrong thread ;-(

[Bakiryu]

A musician is an artist.
A singer is an artist.
They CREATE beauty with either voice or hand.

But actors are not artists, people just like them because of their beauty or character (usually just beauty.) They perform, not create. This is not art.

[jon1jt]

excellent comments!

i have a question though. so are some of you basically saying that there should NOT be a "standard" at all for measuring the artness of the art and artist? :)

[aeroport]

I am largely in agreement, I think, with rabid reader.


A musician is an artist.
A singer is an artist.
They CREATE beauty with either voice or hand.

But actors are not artists, people just like them because of their beauty or character (usually just beauty.) They perform, not create. This is not art.
In mainstream cinema this is more or less the case. But there are definitely some exceptions; (Juliette Binoche’s performance in “Bleu” comes to mind – really good; watch it!). Films which rely heavily on dialogue do not always allow for the freedom to interpret “artistically”. Obviously I do not consider Ben Stiller or Keanu Reeves or, in general, Brad Pitt, to be artists. But there are certainly films which, given performances poorer than those they had, would not have simply been spoiled – they would have been different films altogether, shallower, more trivial, mere “entertainment”. In that sense it is certainly possible for an actor to be an artist. Think of Robert de Niro in “Taxi Driver”; as someone mentioned, Hopkins’s Hannibal Lecter; Al Pacino in pretty much anything (but thinking particularly of “Scarface”, “Godfather Pt. I”, and “The Merchant of Venice”). Some folks just deserve the title beyond a doubt. A lot more, however, do not. As for their “beauty or character”, you’re probably right about celebrity screen actors, but I would suggest seeing some live drama before dismissing the whole crowd as mere “performers”. Theater, best I can tell, is where most of the real talent is (but then, the theater situation is pretty good in KC, so maybe I’m just spoiled).


As for the “music artists” listed in the OP, I am pretty dismissive of them all. “Musically”, none of them really amount to anything. Some people might think the lyrics spectacular (I do not), but in general I do not believe the individuals listed wrote them (with the sole exception, to my knowledge, of Avril Lavigne, with whom I am nonetheless unimpressed). Neither are the melodies anything special – obviously the substance of the songs is meant to be the lyrics. Otherwise, my impression is that the general audience doesn’t ask for much more in its music these days than a “phat beat” to which they may dance, etc., and of course the record companies are only too ready to oblige the paying masses with such mock “talent”. I wouldn’t dismiss all singers as puppets for the writers, but I think there’s a pretty good reason that the term “performance artist” seems to be used almost exclusively in classical music, where the music is almost uniformly more substantial.


excellent comments!

i have a question though. so are some of you basically saying that there should NOT be a "standard" at all for measuring the artness of the art and artist? :)

I don't think loose standards are totally out of the question, so long as it doesn't degenerate into an overtly-pretentious debate (which of course it undoubtedly would). I think any degree of real emotional response in the viewer or listener qualifies a work as a piece of "art"; so essentially, though I don't see the need to compare them to an Art monster like Beethoven, I still consider Dream Theater, Rush, Porcupine Tree, Yes, and the like to be artists - even Metallica, really (all serious hard rock bands, for those who've not heard of them). Pop music simply has never produced a real effect in me the way these have; it feels recycled, and I can immediately recognize that the producers weren't counting on the listener looking for the sort of thing I'm looking for. Altogether, though, I think what really gets to me in that kind of music is the repetition; by the time one finishes hearing a song, one doesn't really need to hear it again. So I don't...

[Bakiryu]

i saw a web advertisement of sorts in Yahoo stating the following:


Popular Music Artist Photos

Jessica Simpson
Shakira
Britney Spears
Avril Lavigne
Beyoncé
Rihanna




I wonder what would happen if suddenly one of these "so-called" artists just sprouted a major deformity or was in a disfiguring accident. Would she/he still be as popular? :lol:

[TheFifthElement]

Obviously I do not consider Ben Stiller or Keanu Reeves or, in general, Brad Pitt, to be artists.

I agree here with the exception of Brad Pitt, who I think is a fine actor, who's acting talent has been expunged by the paparazzi and the press. Have you seen Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Seven, Meet Joe Black? All fine acting performances. I'd have to agree that the more recent stuff is a bit poor. Same would apply to Angelina Jolie who has demonstrated excellent acting skills (with the exception of Tomb Raider, which was poor!). Again, the focus of the press has distracted attention away from that. Let me qualify this comment to say I'm neither a Brad or Angelina fan, I have no interest in their lives, but I've seen both put in very fine performances. The cult of celebrity destroyed their art, as no doubt happens to many artists, both in acting, music and modern art terms.

[jon1jt]

I am largely in agreement, I think, with rabid reader.


In mainstream cinema this is more or less the case. But there are definitely some exceptions; (Juliette Binoche’s performance in “Bleu” comes to mind – really good; watch it!). Films which rely heavily on dialogue do not always allow for the freedom to interpret “artistically”. Obviously I do not consider Ben Stiller or Keanu Reeves or, in general, Brad Pitt, to be artists. But there are certainly films which, given performances poorer than those they had, would not have simply been spoiled – they would have been different films altogether, shallower, more trivial, mere “entertainment”. In that sense it is certainly possible for an actor to be an artist. Think of Robert de Niro in “Taxi Driver”; as someone mentioned, Hopkins’s Hannibal Lecter; Al Pacino in pretty much anything (but thinking particularly of “Scarface”, “Godfather Pt. I”, and “The Merchant of Venice”). Some folks just deserve the title beyond a doubt. A lot more, however, do not. As for their “beauty or character”, you’re probably right about celebrity screen actors, but I would suggest seeing some live drama before dismissing the whole crowd as mere “performers”. Theater, best I can tell, is where most of the real talent is (but then, the theater situation is pretty good in KC, so maybe I’m just spoiled).


As for the “music artists” listed in the OP, I am pretty dismissive of them all. “Musically”, none of them really amount to anything. Some people might think the lyrics spectacular (I do not), but in general I do not believe the individuals listed wrote them (with the sole exception, to my knowledge, of Avril Lavigne, with whom I am nonetheless unimpressed). Neither are the melodies anything special – obviously the substance of the songs is meant to be the lyrics. Otherwise, my impression is that the general audience doesn’t ask for much more in its music these days than a “phat beat” to which they may dance, etc., and of course the record companies are only too ready to oblige the paying masses with such mock “talent”. I wouldn’t dismiss all singers as puppets for the writers, but I think there’s a pretty good reason that the term “performance artist” seems to be used almost exclusively in classical music, where the music is almost uniformly more substantial.



I don't think loose standards are totally out of the question, so long as it doesn't degenerate into an overtly-pretentious debate (which of course it undoubtedly would). I think any degree of real emotional response in the viewer or listener qualifies a work as a piece of "art"; so essentially, though I don't see the need to compare them to an Art monster like Beethoven, I still consider Dream Theater, Rush, Porcupine Tree, Yes, and the like to be artists - even Metallica, really (all serious hard rock bands, for those who've not heard of them. Pop music simply has never produced a real effect in me the way these have; it feels recycled, and I can immediately recognize that the producers weren't counting on the listener looking for the sort of thing I'm looking for. Altogether, though, I think what really gets to me in that kind of music is the repetition; by the time one finishes hearing a song, one doesn't really need to hear it again. So I don't...

excellent point, jamesian. you mentioned the band Rush, which brought me back to a season in my own life when i was devouring their sound and lyrics. fortunately i still have their CDs and will reaquaint myself with such delights today. thanks.

[kilted exile]

excellent comments!

i have a question though. so are some of you basically saying that there should NOT be a "standard" at all for measuring the artness of the art and artist? :)

Yes there is a standard of what is "Good" art & "poor" art. But these are totally subjective, and both groups comprise what is still part of the term as a whole

[jon1jt]

Yes there is a standard of what is "Good" art & "poor" art. But these are totally subjective, and both groups comprise what is still part of the term as a whole


interesting. so are you saying that there can never be a threshold to which the collectivity could point and say with absolute certainty, "that's off limits, we won't tolerate it"?

or am i missing what you're saying, kilted?

[NikolaiI]

I thought kilted meant the quality of the art, not what it's about (something off-limits or not)

[aeroport]

I agree here with the exception of Brad Pitt, who I think is a fine actor, who's acting talent has been expunged by the paparazzi and the press. Have you seen Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club, Seven, Meet Joe Black? All fine acting performances. I'd have to agree that the more recent stuff is a bit poor. Same would apply to Angelina Jolie who has demonstrated excellent acting skills (with the exception of Tomb Raider, which was poor!). Again, the focus of the press has distracted attention away from that. Let me qualify this comment to say I'm neither a Brad or Angelina fan, I have no interest in their lives, but I've seen both put in very fine performances. The cult of celebrity destroyed their art, as no doubt happens to many artists, both in acting, music and modern art terms.
Yeah, I agree; I wasn't sure I quite wanted to insert BP in that list, but the memory of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" brought me to it... I've seen all those but "Seven", and own two of them in fact, and they are indeed great performances, as is Jolie's in "Gia" and some other things. But I don't know if I'll be able to take them seriously again, now... Oh well.


excellent point, jamesian. you mentioned the band Rush, which brought me back to a season in my own life when i was devouring their sound and lyrics. fortunately i still have their CDs and will reaquaint myself with such delights today. thanks.
Most welcome; we could all use a bit more Rush in our lives. :)

[kilted exile]

interesting. so are you saying that there can never be a threshold to which the collectivity could point and say with absolute certainty, "that's off limits, we won't tolerate it"?

or am i missing what you're saying, kilted?

Nik has it.


I thought kilted meant the quality of the art, not what it's about (something off-limits or not)



Now regarding the quality part. As an example I dislike "Modern Art" in general especially the likes of Pollock, Emin, and that guy who paints with elephant dung. To me that is "poor" art but for someone else it is "Good" art.
Same thing goes for the singers you mention, personally I avoid them like the plague but there is a wide number that like them. I am quite confident that (like always) it is me thats right and everyone else is wrong, but......

[jon1jt]

Nik has it.





Now regarding the quality part. As an example I dislike "Modern Art" in general especially the likes of Pollock, Emin, and that guy who paints with elephant dung. To me that is "poor" art but for someone else it is "Good" art.
Same thing goes for the singers you mention, personally I avoid them like the plague but there is a wide number that like them. I am quite confident that (like always) it is me thats right and everyone else is wrong, but......

okay, i see what you mean now. thanks kilted.


I wonder what would happen if suddenly one of these "so-called" artists just sprouted a major deformity or was in a disfiguring accident. Would she/he still be as popular? :lol:


:lol: excellent point---the public would indeed turn them off in a second.

[manolia]

Same thing goes for the singers you mention, personally I avoid them like the plague but there is a wide number that like them. I am quite confident that (like always) it is me thats right and everyone else is wrong, but......

Somehow i am tempted to pm you some more samples of good music :lol:

[kilted exile]

Somehow i am tempted to pm you some more samples of good music :lol:

Somehow I am tempted to remind you that Micheal does not constitute good music:p

[manolia]

Somehow I am tempted to remind you that Micheal does not constitute good music:p

Bah nonsense! Should i remind you AGAIN that you have no taste in music :p
Kidding.

[Bakiryu]

:lol: excellent point---the public would indeed turn them off in a second.

Exactly! What's artistic about portraying emotions realistically, all really good liars can do this! (but they don't look as good). And modern musicians are usually worse than they ever were.

[NickAdams]

The fact that they are celebrities is incidental and neither adds or detracts from their art.

Sums it up.

I consider most pop musicians the Dan Brown of music. I don't consider much of it art. If anything they can be called craftsmen, but most don't write their own lyrics or music. The work becomes that of the filmmaker a composite. Most musicians are instruments played by unpretty faces. Why do I say most, because the Beatles are artist to me. Sgt Pepper! :banana: