I finally sat down and tackled one of the most dreaded sections of my thesis: creating a working definition for “artist.” Since I’m tackling my thesis as a rational argument, there was no way around this section. If I’m going to write about artists, I have to state clearly what that includes.
Because I can’t make anything simple for myself, I segued the discussion into exploring the idea of “individual artist.” Oddly enough this was far less scary to write, probably because I’ve spent so much time over the past few months exploring this concept.
By framing all of my arguments in terms of the worker the pieces are slowly starting to come together. It feels weird to put the emotional component of the artist’s identity on hold for the sake of my own sanity (I hate arguing emotions), but it did help streamline the necessary points I had to make.
And now, for your reading pleasure, a completely unrevised version of my braindump from yesterday’s writing session:
For the purpose of this study, an artist is anyone who identifies as such and takes a visionary/leadership role in the generation of creative output. An artist may be affiliated with an organization (e.g. dance company, theater troupe, film production company), but the organization does not constitute the bulk of their individual identity.
This definition highlights three key topics: self-identification, visionary status, and individuality. The nature of being an artist is being comfortable with an identity that is inherently vague, thus allowing for room for creative thought and expression. Conversely, because the title is so vague almost anyone could be considered an artist. Setting self-identification as a standard for defining an artist maintains the inclusiveness of the field yet allows for members to self-select.
The focus of this study is on the creation of work from the perspective of the visionary. Identifying an artist as a visionary in a leadership position makes a key distinction between the different types of artists involved in the creation of work. The visionary/leader artist is the individual who is able to assemble resources and guide the other players through the creation process. Another kind of artist is the “doer”—the person who carries out the vision. This distinction is often more apparent in the performing arts; visionary/leaders take the form of directors, composers, choreographers, while the “doers” are the actors, musicians, and dancers. There is nothing to stop a “doer” from being a visionary, but having a vision does not automatically translate into leadership and thus the drive to gather resources.
The concept of the “individual artist” is also a tricky idea to define. At the foundation level, an individual artist is defined by their lack of direct affiliation with an organization through which they produce their work. This distinction is often more clearly applied to the visual and literary arts than with the performing arts. Dance is one discipline that highlights the issues associated with the definition used by foundations. While a dancer may produce their work through a company, this is usually in order to meet certain liability issues associated with procuring performance space. The visionary behind the work is still an individual and credit is given to them as such—the company is just a formality in order to work within existing producing structures.
An individual artist could also be defined as a solo worker—they are the leaders and doers behind their work. In practice, though, very few artists are able to operate at this level of isolation. Artists usually require some degree of collaboration in their work, whether through the form of a materials supplier, specialized skill (e.g. welding, electronics, computer programming), or in a more direct form such as performers and participants.
