My Definition of an "Artist"

I think that in terms of individual pieces, no one can tell you that what you’ve created isn’t good enough to be called “art”. I’m of the school of thought that proclaiming something as art makes it so, because from then on, the lens through which it is seen is affected by that statement. Do others have to agree with it? Not necessarily. But just the title has changed the situation entirely.

In my personal opinion, an Artist is a very different matter. You can create or create art and still not be an artist. To me, the title of artist is closer to or religion or philosophy or even some psychiatric condition in which the creation of art (be it visual, literary, performance, etc) is a continued demonstration of this kind of person, this mind. You cannot be an Artist if your life is not ruled by art/your art. Do you see the difference? Someone can create, but if their creations aren’t what consume and perpetuate their very life or what gives it a whole other level of understanding or meaning….I don’t personally see them as an artist. If they have lost that hunger, that lust for beauty and sadness and the complex things in life, they’re not an Artist. Being an Artist is not passive, and at the same time it’s not necessarily something better or worse than anything else. It’s not necessarily something to glorify or something that legitimizes you. It’s just something you ARE in every crevice of your being, something that compels you, and you may not even know it or be able to help it.