I hear this question a lot. Especially when people who don't know me very well hear that I'm an artist. It's one of those questions that can never really be properly answered without sounding rude, so I just sum it up in the context to which they heard about my art. If it's my music, I basically say I play various instruments, sing and song-write. Likewise, if it's my visual art, I sum it up thusly.

An other answer to that question is one I've heard repeated among a few talented artists, "If you have to ask that question, clearly you don't know what it means to be an artist."

Granted, that's a VERY elitist viewpoint, but I find myself occasionally in firm agreement with it. Maybe that's because I'm a borderline elitist prick, but I think there is a little more to it that that. At least, I'm hoping there is more to it than that.

I think I just find the question "What kind of at artist are you?" to be somewhat--ambiguous. Especially if you're at artist of many schools/media such as music, literature, painting, ect. It's very hard to list the forms of art you feel proficient in without sounding very elitist or just plain full of yourself in general.

Which begs the question, which is worse? Listing your preferred mediums as an artist? Or simply saying, "You clearly have no idea what it means to be an artist." Both can be interpreted as elitist, but both, in essence, have a certain sincerity to them that can be almost appealing in a nauseating sort of way.

There's got to be some sort of happy medium, no?

Them: What kind of artist are you?

Me: I'm the kind of artist that doesn't fit into a neat little category.

Michel --