THE ARTISTS FORMERLY KNOWN AS, ER, ARTISTS
ARTS COUNCIL LOSES PLOT:
AN attempt to ditch the term “artist” and replace it with the title “creative practitioner” has been mocked. Arts Council England chiefs reckon “people feel uncomfortable with the term and associate it with high art like opera”.
The move is part of a 10-year plan to boost people’s exposure to culture, such as work produced by modern artists like
Jackson Pollock, who often made his paintings by flinging blobs of paint at a blank canvas. But the idea got a frosty reception from people in the arts world. Author Luke Turner said: “I still feel really awkward saying, ‘I’m a writer’ and don’t quite believe it myself, but ‘creative practitioner’ is just total cringe.” Writer Rhiannon Cosslett added: “Creative practitioner is going to alienate people from disadvantaged backgrounds more than artist would.” And one Twitter user said: “Where I come from an artist is an artist. “A creative practitioner would most definitely be a pretentious w***er...”. Arts Council England defended the move and said it would especially help people in the north, where it is increasing spending by 20%.
Its chief, Sir Nicholas Serota, inset, has pledged more cash for new artists.
ANOTHER day, another bonkers thing for someone to get offended by.
This time it’s artists.
Not the mad and sometimes ridiculous exhibits they routinely try to pass off as masterpieces.
No, instead the artists themselves are upset about being called “artists”.
Back in the day it was surely a compliment to be considered worthy of the title.
Now it seems the term may upset people from poorer backgrounds, apparently because they associate the word with posh cultured types.
Instead, Arts Council England want to refer to them as “creative practitioners”.
Whoever came up with this term must have been drunk at the time.
Or, to put it another way, they must have been a p**s creative practitioner.