tavie.com

I think the cultural distinction we make that separates "artists" from "non-artists" or "creative people" from "non-creative people" is really damaging and limiting to the potential that every human being has to express themselves.

I'm not a skilled draftswoman, and I have never been able to comfortable label myself an "artist". But I like to draw, a lot, so I do it. I find that the more I draw, the "better" my drawings become - the more like what I see in my head, or the more accurately they express what I'm trying to convey. (Generally these days I'm trying to convey "pretty elf with big eyes", but that isn't always the case. It's just a phase. A very loooooong phase.)

Sometimes someone will look over my shoulder and say, "I wish I could draw." It makes me sad because the thing is, they can. It's not that I don't believe that some people don't display a better aptitude for draftmanship or a better sense of spatial design or better ways of putting color together. I think there are definitely people who are more skilled at artistic pursuits than others. I think most of those people do it a lot, and were encouraged at a young age as soon as that aptitude was detected. But people who don't display that aptitude from a young age have just as much potential to express themselves artistically than those who we've tagged "artists".

Some people show skills at a young age and are nurtured appropriately, and some people actually were born geniuses. But others weren't, and got "good" by practicing. And if you're interested enough to do it that much, then don't let the labels put you off. I says. Because it can be fun, even if you're not an "artist", to draw and paint and make things with markers and other materials. "Talent" is a cultural construct, and so are "artists".

Once in awhile I get the blues because I'm not "creative" and I'm not an "artist", so I'm really mostly talking to myself.

Why are you in Tavie's head? 4:23 PM | shower me with attention