Shall we start by opening that beautiful can of worms?
Yes, anyone can be an artist, if they want it enough.
But, will they be a good artist? Well, define good. I tend to agree with Brian Rutenberg – if an artist’s work is still being looked at, bought and sold, twenty years after its creation, the artist is/was good. Time is the only semi-reliable judge of quality, and don’t let the critics (or anyone else for that matter) tell you otherwise.
Semi-reliable because, of course, there is always chance to consider – the work has to survive in some form at least – and that isn’t always down to quality. Tragically, some great but overlooked works will inevitably find their way into landfill or to the recycling centre. Others may become casualties of accident or conflict. Meanwhile, lesser pieces by some ‘hot’ artist will make it swiftly (prematurely?) into the climate-controlled, light-monitored environments of permanent collections. Thus time can only lessen the skewing effect of fashion and personal taste to an extent since the sooner an artwork finds its way into a museum or collection the greater its chance of survival.
Of course ‘good’ artists can make bad work and vice versa. How much is consistency a factor in the equation? If the quality of an artist’s work is hit and miss, does that disqualify them from being considered a ‘good’ artist? What if there are too few surviving works to make that calculation, but what little does remain is highly prized? The lottery of art history is a fascinating subject, particularly its omissions and revisions, but when all is said and done, the true value of a work is only known to its creator.
So, if anyone can be an artist (if they want it enough) – how?
Stick with me and I’ll tell you.
