At what point did singers start referring to themselves as artists?

Enrico Caruso in the late 1890’s, just a guess.

My earliest recollection of the term applying to pop singers was when Prince renamed himself with a squiggle and became “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince” (TAFKAP).

Art is subjective.
It is an art to know how to utilize breath control, and use of ones vocal cords as well as ears all at one time. It is also an art to perform this in front of an audience.

Also, music is not only considered an art, but it is also a science. Yep, it sure is. And I swear, I would stay up for the three or four extra hours and vote until my fingers fall off for any contestant who would ever stand there, post-performance, and while talking to Ryan say something like “Well, Ryan, as a scientist I try to put my best formula out for every performance.”

Music is also mathematical. Would you expect someone to say they used their best math skills to Ryan, too?

I believe singing has always been considered an art form.

@SpatzieLover If someone indeed refers to themselves as a mathematician to Ryan in the post-performance interview, I would vote for them 362 times.

@12Oaks Fair enough ;P

Since there have been recordings of singers, they have been referred to as recording artists.

There are many types of art forms: singing, painting, dancing, photography. Not sure why you have a beef against singers.

@Kardamom I don’t have a beef with singers. I been one for some time in a band and solo. It’s just that calling a singer an “artist” is kind of abusing the word. I wouldn’t even consider photography as an art form, as anybody could take pictures as good as the next guy, unlike music or painting or sculpting.

@12Oaks Are you kidding me? You don’t think that photography is an art form. One of my best friends got her art degree in photography, so I guess she considers herself to be an artist. She went to an expensive art school and did a lot of incredible work to get that art degree in photography.

You don’t think any of the following photographers are artists?

Ansel Adams

Alfred Stiegletz

Richard Avedon

John Baldessari

Edward Bierstadt

Margaret Bourke-White

Robert Capa

Henri Cartier-Bresson

Imogen Cunningham

Alfred Eisenstaedt

Dorothea Lange

Robert Mapplethorpe

Gordon Matta-Clark

Tina Modotti

Edward Weston

@Kardamom Give anybody who could see a camera, and they could take a photograph, even of the beach like in that first photo. Give the same sighted person some brushes, paint, and a blank canvas and chances are they can’t paint the beach, or anything else. Give them a piano and it’s doubtful they could make music. Press the keys and sound notes? Sure. But play music? No. No, I have no idea who anybody is on that list but if they take pictures, they ain’t artists. Not in my opinion, anyway, and that’s what you asked.

@12Oaks Photography is a lot more than just point-and-snap. If you hand a random person a camera and ask them to take a photo, it’s only slightly more likely to measure up to Ansel Adams as that person’s plinking away at a piano is likely to measure up to Beethoven.

@MacBean OK, this is something that I just don’t get, and would sincerely like to understand this. I mean, with all due respect to Mr. Adams, it, technically, the camera that takes the photo, not the photographer. With that, how could it be that, given the same camera and scenery or whatever, Mr. Adams could have a camera take a photo any better then, say, MacBean or Kardamom? It seems the same as saying that SpatzieLover could turn on a light better that 12Oaks because of he switching technique or something.

…art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions…

@12Oaks an artist is someone that influences your imagination.

Again, I say art is subjective. I imagine that ½ of the art at the art museum is not what you would consider “art”, nor would you consider the person that created it to be an “artist”.

I do actually think the way in which some people to their job is an art…so your light switch scenario isn’t far off ;)

I’m thinking when they earned enough money to stand a round of drinks all night, it’s short for piss artist! :-/ just a guess……. Lol.

@SpatzieLover Your assumption about me in the art museum may be correct. I’m just not the type to accept something as art just because some who claim to be an artist decrees it to be. I think it’s the audience who should be the one to determine what is and isn’t art. Oh, and Blue Boy is one of my favorite paintings. That guy who painted pictures of melting clocks and the such I also found very interesting.

The real in the deal I have to agree, singers calling themselves artist is an over use or an abuse of the term. I find few singers what I would really call talented. Most singers have limited range or style. I would say it is more of a gift than a talent. Yet most people in a talent competition would vote a singer through than a dancer or a musician playing the cello or the piano, and it took more hours of practice to get really good at that than just being blessed coming out the womb with a even smooth voice.

I wouldn’t even consider photography as an art form, as anybody could take pictures as good as the next guy, unlike music or painting or sculpting.
I mean, with all due respect to Mr. Adams, it, technically, the camera that takes the photo, not the photographer. The camera captures the image same as a movie camera does but it is the person behind the camera as it is the director that composes the shot, the lighting used to convey a mood or affect. Having taken photography and did some freelance there IS a difference then just pointing a camera and snapping a picture and taking a picture that people will stop and really look at.

With that, how could it be that, given the same camera and scenery or whatever, Mr. Adams could have a camera take a photo any better then, say, MacBean or Kardamom? In all actuality if they had a quality camera they could have captured waves like that if they were patient, then again we don’t know how many exposures Mr. Adams took before he got that. Shooting nature is 80% luck or being at the right place at the right time. But consistency is the game. MacBean might have been able to take Adams-like photos if he really applied himself or he might be able to do it 30% and no better, it comes down to how well he can compose the elements in the photo that would be pleasing to see to the rest of us. That is what separates those who just snap pictures from those who are called artist.

more of a gift than a talent

A true singer must learn how to utilize that gift…That is the art of singing.

@12Oaks – @Hypocrisy_Central answered the question(s) you directed at me really well. Far better than I could have managed today. Thanks, @Hypocrisy_Central!

Much of the art of photography is in the exposure and development of the negative and the printing of the photograph. An amateur could stand next to Ansel Adams with the exact same camera and take the picture at the exact same moment, and not come close to what he produced.

@12Oaks Wow! I can’t believe that you have no idea who any of those photographers are (I chose the most common examples from the best of the best). I studied art and worked in both art museums and museums that specialized in Photography. I don’t expect you to love or like any particular piece of art, but to say that photographer’s are not artists is just plain ignorant.

It makes me think that you are really limited in your world view and that is really sad. There are lots and lots of fantastic artists out there that you will never know because of your dismissive attitude. I don’t know if you are just naive or if you are just missing something with regards to creativity.

You might want to check out some of the links that I posted. You could learn a lot about photography, artists and where those artists were coming from. You don’t have to like them, but I guarantee that if you pay attention, you will learn something.

@Kardamom It’s not that I’m dismissive or naive or just plain ignorant, it’s just that photography isn’t anything I really ever took that great of interest in so I am not familiar with the names involved. Kind of like R & B music or eyeglasses designers (There was a commercial on the radio some time ago where mock contestants on a game show were debating who the best designer in eyeglasses were, and I didn’t recognize a single name). We all just can’t know everything about everything, and photography is one of the things I just chose not to follow, like stamp designers and architects. I like looking at buildings sometimes, but I can’t tell you who the architect is—but I could say I do not like Frank Ghery (sp.). Just a taste thing, maybe.

Oh, and if I ever went to a picture museum and spent the day there, I’d like likely enjoy that and like some of the pictures. I’d probably leave not remembering a single name of the person who took the picture as I’m bad at remembering things like that, but I wouldn’t go around poo-pooing everything I see. I likely would still question the label of “artist” being used, just seems like there’s a lot of “artistic license” being used for that label.

@12Oaks yes anyone can just push a button. But the photographer notices the special subject, positions the camera, frames the shot, sets the focus, maybe waits for specific conditions.
Then pushes the button.
Maybe repeating all of that oodles of times. In the case of the greats mentioned on @Kardamom‘s excellent survey list spending hours in the darkroom getting the expression of the negative just so on the print. And after all that judging which is the best of the bunch to put out there for the world to see.
Not anyone can do that.