Hi David -- I enjoy your view as always. Obviously heavily steeped
in the Art Historian's point of view (see citations included in his
post), your perspective is well-documented. As we both know, an Art
Historian does not an Artist make, but they sure work hard to try to
define and categorize and squeeze the essence out, right? (Even if
it's not the true essence -- because that escapes the grasp.)
The most interesting thing about defining "artist" by the study of
art history is that by the time the object, person making object,
and trend are deconstructed and labelled, the process is generally
over and dead. Basically the Art Historian dissects the remains of
creative work like a biology student takes apart a lab frog. Then
they weigh the frog, compare and contrast it with other lab frog
data, and come up with a theory. It is just a theory.
This is only one of the many reasons why I have given up argueing
about the term "artist".
--Terri, who calls herself an artist for political reasons (just kidding)