Artists vs. Entertainers (According To Fred Hicks)

HERE is a really cool essay on the difference between artists and entertainers by the clever and congenial Fred Hicks.

I have discussed some of these issues with my most beloved creative partner (whom I also happen to be married to) on and off over the years.  But Fred does a great job of polishing his idea of the differences and needs of artists vs. entertainers.

* * *

Update: after reading this essay to my wife, we discussed it further.  Here is a little more about what I think of Fred's assessment.

I agree with him about 90%.  But I do think that there is a point of disagreement between his definition of artist and art goes thus:

An artist’s priority is on the art, which also defines the end-point of the creative effort. Once the artist creates the artwork, their job is done. Happiness with the result’s quality as they perceive it is paramount.
Importantly, money and an audience doesn’t enter into it (and can’t, really, in the pure form of this stance).

I believe firmly that because of the reality of what kind of creatures human beings are, we are deeply relational.  The way that an artist relates is by making art, and bringing together truths about reality as they relate to each other through their artistic media.  If a piece of art fails to communicate relationally, it has failed as a piece of art.  Great art therefore is art that many can relate to one way or another.  Art without an audience is dead. 

On the other hand, art beholden to the whim of the audience, particularly an audience that does not understand, or does not value truth, is also debased from it's purpose.

My wife on the other hand thinks that, in order to be successful, the art must accomplish the artist's purpose at the most basic level.  This is much closer to Fred's idea, but she suggests that creative work that is done with the intent to find a solution to an artistic problem may not be art (it is nascent, but not complete), but rather is process.  In the hands of a master, it may well be beautiful and finer than the work of a poorer craftsman, but it is not yet art.

So I would synthesize this to suggest that art must:

...be born of a creative process... accomplishing what the artist intended to do... that communicates some kind of truthful relationship about reality... in a way that the receiver can comprehend.

My two cents.

But I really think Fred is darn sensible on this piece of thinking.