Of Observations and Derivatives

I was talking with my father the other day and I was forced to categorize how I considered artists. I came up with the following theory:

Artists, of all venues, can be lumped into two categories: performers and creators. Then there are those who do both.

Those who perform others' material may be very successful based on their crowd-pleasing abilities, and those who create their own material may be very successful based on their creative genius. It is the difference between a magician who very successfully performs classic tricks to the audience, and a magician who is continually inventing new tricks and new interpretations to old ones. Both versions are considered artist, as both take a good level of skill and passion for the trade in order to perform; however they remain separate expressions of the same artistic passion.

The same may be said of actors versus directors, singers versus songwriters, instrumental musicians versus composers, even rubber stampers versus the stamp designers. And either category may branch into another: Mel Gibson has both acted and directed (as well as written scripts), and has done so quite successfully. He is an example of a performing and a creative artist.

The ability to create art, however, and the ability to perform it, seem to be caused by two separate motivations. The performance of art uses something already successful and enhances it or otherwise modifies it, using an already-successful medium to express to an audience. While this is a very useful skill, I tend to lend greater value to the creators, whose skills are bent towards creating something no one has seen before. It's more risky a venture, and takes time to gain popularity, but I can better appreciate what comes of such people.

Then again, a blend of traits is always good.