The Art of Being an Artist

Can you even say you're on this course without at some point going down a rabbit hole? I think not. Allow me to introduce you to the warren I've fallen into. 

Following my blog debating whether dance is a sport, how the two are similar/different, and if its place in the Olympics is valid, something kept cropping up:

Dancers are artists

Dancers are artists. Dance is art. Dance goes beyond just the physical skill to artistry. Dance unites athleticism and artistry. Dance is not a sport because it is an art form. To be a successful dancer you must be an artist. Sport needs skill but dance needs skill and artistry. To be a better dancer is to be a better artist.

This seems to be the main theme involved in dancers distancing themselves from sport and is frequently adopted in favour of encouraging any similarities. Arguably one of the greatest dancers of the 20th Century, Rudolph Nureyev, cited in Kleinman (1992), in response to a comment about his superb athletic ability from a reporter replied, "I am not an athlete. I am a great artist."

Got you. Message received.

So, if I may, what is artistry?

Back in module one (sorry to bring it up) at some point there was a discussion on my blog about how when you get to professional training, they strip you back and reform your technique until you're a chorus of identical technicians diligently doing the same thing the same way as you've all been taught, then they proceed to scold you for doing everything the same way as each other (as you've all been taught...) and having no 'artistry'. So, is artistry a 'thing'? - something you can lose or find or forget or just pick back up? Is it the icing on the cake of a mastered skill? Is it a 'quality' you either have or don't have? Is it a 'choice' made in the way you do something? Is it something you learn? Something you're born with? Is artistry an elite 'tool'? What does it look like? What does it contain? 

Oh, and my other question, why are we so possessive of it? When exactly did we decide artistry was ours?

Don't get me wrong, I was right there flying the flag for dancers being artists and using this as a distinction between other professions, but - and I think this is where I tripped and fell into the afore mentioned rabbit hole - then I thought, what about everyone else? 

Does no one else have artistry? Of course we have 'The Arts' containing a whole host of types of artists - dancers, singers, actors, painters, designers, musicians, costume makers, photographers, sculptors, illustrators, graphic designers - and we can house them under different categories such as Performing Arts, Visual Arts, Graphic Arts etc, but what about artistry outside of these?

If you consider yourself an artist, which if you're reading this I'm guessing you do, are you telling me that the only time artistry is in your life is when you're actively making art? --- If you are, what are you the rest of the time when you're not 'being an artist'? And if you're not, are you suggesting there is a state where you can be an artist without making art?

In which case, artistry can surely exist in sport, business, catering, writing, hospitality and so forth. The phrase 'She's got it down to a fine art' is seldom actually used in the arts, so the idea of artistry in the everyday is not new.

Dewey (2005) offers that, 

"The intelligent mechanic engaged in his job, interested in doing well and finding satisfaction in his handiwork, caring for his materials and tools with genuine affection, is artistically engaged. The difference between such a worker and the inept and careless bungler is as great in the shop as it is in the studio."

And truth be told, I'm inclined to agree. The mechanic isn't 'making art' but that doesn't mean he doesn't have artistry. He sees and executes the task at hand with more than just the technical motions of 'doing the job'. There is a passion, a level of care, a putting of oneself into the action; there is a level of artistry.

But what is it? What is artistry?

Austen & Martin (2010) convey that, "artistry can never be understood in isolation from the medium in which it's being pursued". Not much hope for a universal answer then. But they do seem to suggest artistry itself is more universally accessible because it is "rooted in qualities" rather than rooted in 'art'.

Perhaps then, elitism has diluted artistry elsewhere. The grandeur of artists (and I'm not saying we aren't grand) has overshadowed the artistry of the ordinary wo/man. The muggle. The mechanic, the teacher, the horseman, the CEO, the lab tech. 

How artistry has become known over time also opens up debates about capitalism and the view of art. Dewey suggests that capitalism has had a "powerful influence" on museums becoming the recognised homes for works of art, and communities and nations build museums, galleries and opera houses that "reflect and establish superior cultural status", segregating them from common life and acting as "a kind of counterpart of a holier-than-thou attitude" towards the interests and activities the community devotes time and energy to. Dewey also brings forth ideas such as economic patronage by wealthy, powerful individuals encouraging artistic production, and changes in industrial conditions meaning "the artist has been pushed aside from the main streams of active interest ... He is less integrated than formerly in the normal flow of social services." This separation from normal life, he suggests, is why such "individualism" results.

So Dewey advocates artistry as a part of the process and practice of living and similarly, Klienman views attitudes such as Nureyev's as part of establishing "a hierarchy in the performance disciplines, resulting in the artificial separation of art from life." He goes on to quote a critic who complained that classical music is "more accessible than it ought to be" because it has been cheapened and diluted to become more accessible. Kleinman then cites Dewey's (1958) view that there is usually "a hostile reaction to a conception of art that connects it with the activities of a live creature in its environment". So they would seem to suggest a hierarchy of art and artistry has been established that leaves no room for the idea of their existence in more ordinary affairs. They suggest that our culture and society, rather than we individual artists, are responsible for an attitude of artistry as directly involved with creation of great art that couldn't possibly manifest in the ordinary man and his ordinary craft.

Austen & Martin's book 'Artistry Unleashed: A Guide to Pursuing Great Performance in Work and Life' is based on the premise that professionals, practitioners, managers, and executives can be helped to develop "qualitative powers that artistic people employ routinely" such as feeling, judgement, sense, proportion, balance, and appropriateness to improve their work in their own field. What they suggest is there is, or has been, a communication gap where "the executive sees the artist as a directionless fool ... The artist sees the executive as a prisoner of her own spreadsheets" and hence the values and desired qualities of each have taken a binary stance that opposes them to one another. Austen & Martin aim to blur the lines with The Seven Hallmarks of Artistry that they proclaim artists know and others must learn:

1. Pursue ends and means interdependently
2. Cultivate unity with a medium
3. Reason with qualities
4. Sustain the dynamic partnership of mastery and originality
5. Remain unfazed by failure and unfixed by fame
6. Develop cognitive emotions
7. Express personal ideals, understanding, and awareness in action

To them, artistry is a skill to be nurtured. It is the qualitative intelligence of a person who's quantitative intelligence, no matter how vast, can never fulfil all aspects of greatness.

Artistry is often referred to as a 'feeling', a 'flow', a state of being or 'finding a muse'. Austen & Martin suggest artistry is about leaving behind the routines and recipes already established to live at the edge of what is possible. Kathryn Morgan advocates that artistry as a dancer involves having a story, having something to say, something to give, having a connection - you to the art, the art to the audience, and you to the audience. 

Perhaps artistry can only be defined by the one practicing it - only the person engaged in the artistry knows what it truly means in that moment, in that space, in that practice. Perhaps artistry isn't a 'thing' but a 'way'. Perhaps artistry isn't that which separates dancer from non-dancer, perhaps it is what separates human from artist. 

How dare we be so selfish as to keep it as our own.

References

Austen, H. & Martin, R. (2010). Artistry Unleashed: A Guide to Pursuing Great Performance in Work and Life. University of Toronto Press. ProQuest Ebook Central. [online] Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mdx/detail.action?docID=4672492# [Accessed 18^th February 2021]

Dewey, J. (2005). Art As Experience. Penguin Publishing Group. ProQuest Ebook Central. [online] Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mdx/detail.action?docID=6047119# [Accessed 18^th February 2021]

Kleinman, S. (1992). Dance and Sport: The Tie That Binds, or the Bind That Ties? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 63(5) p.42 [online] Available at: https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.mdx.ac.uk/docview/215770041?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=12441 [Accessed 17^thFebruary 2021]

Morgan, K. (2015). Developing Artistry as a Dancer | Kathryn Morgan. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTo-goJkDtE [Accessed 19^th February 2021]