>An artist is a showman. Art is nothing >without an audience. Indeed, art is one half of a conversation. Could >you hold a conversation without someone else to listen and counter?
An artist is a showman? Perhaps, because "artist" is a word that describes both a person who creates art, or one who displays or performs the art he/she's created. One name perhaps, but two quite different actions, actually.
"Could you hold a conversation without someone else to listen and counter?" "conversation" implies interaction between folks. That is analogous to "artist" in the interactive sense, but not necesarily in the creative sense at all.
Try this...can you speak and express your thoughts without someone to interact with? Yes, of course you can. You can in some forms of singing (the non-performance forms) and you can in praying (again, the non-performance form of that, too. :) )
>A good musician manages to express himself and put on a show >simultaneously. These aren't mutually exclusive tasks.
A good PERFORMING musician manages to express himself and put on a show simultaneously.
But a GOOD MUSICIAN does not necesarily need to have anything to do with perfomance. And yes, folks can debate the validity of what that musician is expressing and be appalled that they have no desire to "perform" it at others, but it is no less musicianship...and at times, it is better musicianship that "perfomance" is.
Just that same $0.02 that I glady donate any time anyone steps to clost to my '"performance" and "music" are not necesarily the same thing' soapbox.