Have you read “The Death of the Artist — and the Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur”, William Deresiewicz’s article from the January/February 2015 issue of the Atlantic magazine? Judging from the number of references to it that have appeared lately, it has obviously struck a nerve and I highly recommend you check it out.

Jason Horejs of Red Dot Blog wrote an interesting response that I feel strikes a worthy note — and I would encourage you to read his rebuttal after you’ve had a chance to first read Deresiewicz’s article. My thoughts below hinge on both and I would love to hear what you think as well.

While I think Deresiewicz has opened an interesting discussion that poses worthwhile food for thought, I won’t be losing any sleep over his conclusions. For me, his theory and accompanying reasoning that art and artists are disappearing, falls into the same category as the exhaustingly overwrought discussion of “Art vs Craft”. I would suggest we not waste precious time debating semantics and rather devote our energy to amassing either our 10,000 hours…or the 10,000 contacts he references, whichever you feel will best serve your vision of the path you have chosen.

The bottom line is that art is subjective. Period. It’s a source of unending debate; one that has no definitive answer one way or another despite whatever schooling, patronage, or professionalism an individual may accrue.

Regardless of how the marketplace and society has affected the way we regard “artists” through the centuries, there will never be a definitive formula for outlining who exactly is worthy of the appellation. There have always been and will continue to be those who make great work who are ignored and rejected during their lifetime, while there will be others who are greatly celebrated but with whom many cannot find any connection. That, for good or bad, seems to be an inherent part of the deal we enter into when we decide to share our work beyond the walls of our studios.

The most salient point is the one Mr. Horejs makes toward the end of his rebuttal:                  “Mr. Deresiewicz fails to realize that the desire to create is as old as mankind, and that as long as humanity exists there will be those among us who strive to create works of art that have the ability to leave the rest of us in absolute wonder.”                                                            To take it a step farther, I would strike the phrase “…that have the ability to leave the rest of us in absolute wonder”, as the thought is self-sufficient without that qualifier. Many of us make/create because we wouldn’t know how not to, because we see and absorb the world around us in a way that insists a response. We strive to create wonder in our viewers, but will continue to work despite falling short of that goal. That said, the cream will rise to the top regardless of how it is bottled.

In his recent lecture at the University of Vermont, (grab yourself a cup of tea and enjoy it via this link) author Salman Rushdie asserted that there isn’t a better description of what Art attempts than:  “to open up the Universe a little more”. He went on to say that “what art tries to do is to increase by some degree the sum total of what it is that we know, what it is that we understand, what it is that we see, and therefore in the end, what it is possible for us to be”. Isn’t that what we are seeking when we read, go to the theater, museum or a gallery…or (gasp) even buy something handmade on Etsy? I think the key point Rushdie makes revolves around the sharing of art and the communing that occurs between creator and observer as the art, in whatever form, is experienced.

We make because we have to. But the icing on the cake is connection, of feeling that you have cracked open the universe, even ever so slightly, so as to share what you have seen with someone else.

Long live the artist.