from Facebook

Everett True I can sit in front of a table and draw a few lines on a piece of paper. Is that art? Does that make me an artist?I can sit at a computer keyboard and type a few lines about some record I heard (or whatever). Is that criticism? Does that make me a critic? I can sing lustfully to my baby as I'm tying my laces, or bang a few saucepans. Is that music? Does that make me a musician?

Yesterday at 15:12 · Comment · 

John Waterman 

Yes! Welcome to the 21st century. No one has credibility anymore . . .

Yesterday at 15:15 · 

John Waterman 

Can you stand behind a lectern and speak eloquently? Is that presidential? Does that make you a president? Apparently, YES!

Yesterday at 15:30 · 

Shaun Prescott 

Stunning logic, John.

Yesterday at 15:41 · 

Mathew Dryhurst 

Maybe, in context. Maybe, in context. Maybe, in context. More context? What got your goat?

Yesterday at 15:53 · 

Everett True 

it's my research. these are genuine questions that I don't know the answers to

Yesterday at 15:54 · 

Mathew Dryhurst 

I would say that there is no single answer, however there are a great many lines of reason. It is slippery to suggest that only with sufficient training one can be a writer/artist/musician, just as it is slippery to prize authenticity or external qualification above intent. Beyond matters of taste or temporally bound judgment, one could say that art, writing and music are all variants of communication, and irrespective of how elucidating the particular communication is, if it succeeds in transferring one agent's thoughts to another then it is successful.

I personally think that the terms are confusing. I think that it is silly that we have the same word for the process of creating as we do for what we judge to be personally resonant, as in 'art' or 'music'. I think that this confuses two vastly different processes, and is misleading at best.

Yesterday at 16:08 · 

Jacques Eduard Scorsese 

Popularity and economics are the only possible objective measures of success. If we measure success by economics and popularity then McDonalds is the best food in the world. So in my opinion popularity and money can't really measure if you are something or not. You really are nothing until YOU decide you are something then YOU are regardless of what everyone else thinks. If you don't consider yourself a critic but someone else does, then YOU ARE a critic to THEM. Muliverse theory solves a lot of post modern Delilahs.

Yesterday at 17:15 · 

John Waterman 

Asking rhetorical questions will get you nowhere. Let's talk about what you hate. I personally can't stand Them Crooked Vultures. I mean, wtf?

Yesterday at 18:17 · 

Andrew Clare 

i think the answer to most of those questions is yes.

Yesterday at 20:05 · 

Daniel Mayhew 

Hey, ET maybe have a read of that book I sent you. It grapples with these very issues. Doesn't reach an answer though I'm afraid.

Yesterday at 22:17 · 

Andrew Hitchcock 

Here's three cliches now write a review:-)

17 hours ago · 

Stephanie Soltes 

A real artist (the visual type) always knows when to stop painting. So,use that.

14 hours ago · 

Colin Buchan Liddell 

It's a conundrum, because I can have a wank and I'm still not a wanker.

12 hours ago · 

Steve Dillon 

Everett have you read 'The Craftsman' by Richard Sennett. I think he has some very well evidenced argument for what you are talking about here.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article3328493.ece

10 hours ago · 

Phil Graham 

You are clearly an artist, musician, critic, and lace tyer whilst engaged in said practices. It's just that you might not be a very good one, that's all. Or maybe you are fantastically excellent. No big deal. It's really not that complex.

8 hours ago · 

Andrew Hitchcock 

Journos need labels -man

2 hours ago · 

social networking = scant financial gain?

The Guardian