Art Has No Master

The term "master" has been used to label artists and musicians of all kinds for centuries. I guess it is because these particular skills are held in an especially high regard by society. But I really don't think it is good or correct to give these artists quite that level of credit. I would say one could be a master craftsman or a master archer, for example. But art is not something that can be mastered. If it were, it would have stopped progressing by now, or at least slowed way down. Instead, it gleefully skips ahead at the pace of societies' changes, singing, painting, writing poetry and making wise cracks all along the way.

I think art should be thought of more like science; and in particular, like human biologists view themselves. Physicians have a great perspective on things. You never hear them referred to as masters of medicine, or that any of them have mastered medicine. They are cocky and very confidant, but they know very well they will always have more to learn. There will never be a day when they have it all figured out. Not even close, in fact. That is why they always say that they are practicing medicine.

Always practicing. That is the most advanced point you can get to from here on this Two-dimensional hologram we dream in. Artists practice their art. I am a practicing painter. If we keep calling them masters, I fear some artists might get a bit of an ego.