I have the suspicion that "famous" correlates with "crazy" more than "artistic" does.

e.g.: [link]

Celebrities have more narcissistic personality traits than the general population, and people with narcissistic tendencies seem to be attracted to the entertainment industry rather than the industry creating narcissists, according to a groundbreaking study

Where would you put your UPS guy? Margaret Thatcher? Your high school math teacher?

+5, +5, +1 -- in my head "more artistic" is on the left side of the page. Not sure why. I do love my UPS guy. And my favorite hs math teacher was more artistic than you might think.

Like this thing: [link] Only awesomer.

The problem with Michael Bay movies overall, for me, is that he appears intent on positing the human species as too dumb to live.

Please, feel free to make my points for me. Not an artist.

Now, now. I'm sure we can think up "real artists" that would meet your torturation criteria who also posit the human species as too dumb to live. Why, that's kind of the raison d'etre for certain flavors of literature, no?

I have the suspicion that "famous" correlates with "crazy" more than "artistic" does.

I have the suspicion that any study on the entertainment industry done by someone that calls themselves Dr. Drew is highly suspect.

according to a groundbreaking study

Sounds like the study has some narcissisticism of its own.

In my unscientific work with not very successful theatre people, I have tended to work with a 75/25 split of narcissistic asshole/normal person. I found the normal people to be more talented, or at least so much easier to work with that it outweighs the slight increase in talent.

In my unscientific work with not very successful theatre people, I have tended to work with a 75/25 split of narcissistic asshole/normal person. I found the normal people to be more talented, or at least so much easier to work with that it outweighs the slight increase in talent.

I would insert rant here, if I wasn't leaving work in 4 minutes. Something about insecurity leading to monstrous behaviour. But, in short, I will agree with Sophia, but say that I've often wondered if the crazy/bitchy/normal/nice spectrum of behaviour doesn't affect one's outlook on that person's performance.

My psychiatrist friend has mentioned a definite correlation between creative types and mental illness. But who's to say if the mental illness helps or hinders the creative process.

I have tended to work with a 75/25 split of narcissistic asshole/normal person. I found the normal people to be more talented, or at least so much easier to work with that it outweighs the slight increase in talent.

My experience was 50/25/25 narcissistic asshole/unbalanced or lacking-common-sense genius/normal person. The geniuses could either be jackasses or like unto sweet, dumb puppies that needed to be herded. The assholes may or may not have been talented. But something I noticed, even with the "normal" theater people, was a lot of passion - enough that it was outside the norm of the general populace. However, I was living in a place renowned for the stoicism of the inhabitants. I don't know how much to correct for that.

Hec, how do you define artist?

People who create works which are meritorious.

Meritorious things: well executed, original, thoughtful, insightful.

Non-Meritorious things: hackneyed, cliched, poorly executed, conventional.

So if Michael Bay made original, thoughtful and insightful movies where things blew up he'd be good with me. He'd be like...early James Cameron. The insight would be on the thin side but it would be original and well made.

But people can quibble about any standard you place for art. And I know Nutty will quibble and ita will get out her pom poms and cheer "Be! Be! Be more specific!"

However, I am not particularly interested in a long conversation just to define terms so let me cut to the gist.

You can create art in any medium where you demonstrate mastery of the medium and use it in daring and original ways. If it's unoriginal then it is falling on the spectrum from Really Rather Artistic to Rather a A Lot of Crap.

Being derivative in art is not the worst sin by any means but if you're looking at how to judge a creation, then the more work that goes into creating and less from deriving is a valid standard.

Execution would be (I think) the other axis to consider.

So if the art is extremely original and interesting but poorly executed (like some folk art) then it's still pretty high on our chart. If it's extremely well executed but fairly derivative then it can also be quite artful. But the work which is original and well executed rates the mostly highly.

Those are my standards and I think they're defensible.