My friend ruth posted the above in her journal, with this explanation:

'For those of you who don't speak UML, my lecturer is asserting that an artist is still an artist even if they never produce any work. Discuss.'

This was my response:

I think I disagree with your lecturer. His/her premise is based on the, in my opinion, illusory idea that the artistic is like some magical force that is contained within some people and not others. Rather than that art is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, which may not be the exact percentage but is nearer the truth.

The ability to produce something non-functional but aesthetically pleasing (which is one definition of 'art') is in the ability of pretty much anyone. The decision to give something the title of 'art' lies with those who observe or otherwise consume the piece in question. This is naturally subjective. But most would agree that artists are generally not best placed to judge their own work, either relative to others' work or their own previous work. So if an artist produces bad work others may say it is worthless or not 'art'. If an artist produces no work then no one can designate it art or otherwise.

So I conclude if you do not produce 'work' you cannot be called an artist. Because (to summarise):

1.It is other people who decide whether your work merits the definition of 'art'.
2.Unless you make 'art' you can't be an artist - just as if you do not lay bricks you cannot claim to be a bricklayer.
3.If you don't make any work, no one can judge it as 'art'.

Even if you have ideas for work, or the temperament and inclination to make it - unless you do it you're not an artist, instead you might be what they call 'emo'.
----------
What do YOU think?