Arts Vs. Crafts

[dwinterfield]

I would say there
must be the intention on the part of the maker to
produce something that realizes aesthetic features,
like beauty, where the principal value of the
object will be aesthetic--even if it has a functional
practical value too.

The idea that art always involves some sort of
'statement' is very interesting and worth thinking
about, but I'm not sure this is always there.
If I try to make something the chief value of
which is its beauty, that seems to me to be
sufficient for art, whether or not I make
a statement.

I've always thought that sometimes people with special abilities (skills, craftmanship etc.) intentionally produce art.

Other times people who may have the same abilities intentionally produce something they think is art, but they are wrong.

To me the most interesting event is people, who may or may not have special abilities, are doing something unrelated to art, but art it is the result.

The image above is from the web page of the American Visionary Art Museum.

Is unintended art, art?

[Nanohedron]

You didn't tell me if you'd want to look at it every day, Cran.

Here you go again, just let you think about it:



Here's my take on it: the coloring is cold, first and foremost, and I suspect the lady portrayed doesn't quite look like that. If she does, there are better ways to show her beauty through composition, including her pose, choice of colors, and use of lighting. The mouth seems disproportionate. If it isn't, the painter's technique makes it look so. The eyes are doing two different things. This may be physiological, but color, lighting, and positioning can determine whether physical idiosyncrasies greet the viewer as character or as disturbing asymmetry. It's not a matter of "lying", it's a matter of working out a composition further than just plopping paint down because you have something of a knack.

That's where "art" comes into the equation.

[jim stone]

I would say there
must be the intention on the part of the maker to
produce something that realizes aesthetic features,
like beauty, where the principal value of the
object will be aesthetic--even if it has a functional
practical value too.

The idea that art always involves some sort of
'statement' is very interesting and worth thinking
about, but I'm not sure this is always there.
If I try to make something the chief value of
which is its beauty, that seems to me to be
sufficient for art, whether or not I make
a statement.

I've always thought that sometimes people with special abilities (skills, craftmanship etc.) intentionally produce art.

Other times people who may have the same abilities intentionally produce something they think is art, but they are wrong.

To me the most interesting event is people, who may or may not have special abilities, are doing something unrelated to art, but art it is the result.

The image above is from the web page of the American Visionary Art Museum.

Is unintended art, art?

Great question. 'Art' is sometimes an honorific.
We use it to connote successful or good art.
But there is a sense of 'art' where 'bad art'
isn't an oxymoron, and that's what interests me.
I would say that when people intentionally produce
something they think is art, probabably they have--
but their being wrong consists in their mistakenly
thinking it's any good.

'Unintended art' might be the product of somebody who
doesn't think he's creating art, but does create something
with the intention that it manifest aesthetic features,
beauty, elegance, grandeur, and so on. The costume
in your picture above probably wasn't made by
people who thought of themselves as artists, but
the makers probably did see the chief worth of their
product in its aesthetic features--it's value to them
isn't chiefly or even largely it's ability to shelter the
wearer from the sun and the cold.

Primitive art is often this way. On the other hand,
a counter-example to what I'm saying is the neolithic
cave drawings of deer and other animals. If these
weren't drawn principally to realize aesthetic
features, but to represent successful hunts in the
belief that doing so would make them happen,
then on my account they weren't art--even though
they were superbly executed and are among the
world's artistic treasures.

Well, that's what happens when you theorize about art!

Obviously we can view such objects as if they are art,
that is, as if they were executed chiefly to realize
aesthetic features. In a certain sense art, perhaps like
beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

So I might 'bite the bullet' and say the cave drawings
aren't art, though they realize extraordinary
aesthetic values (perhaps like the decoy duck you
showed above), but we certainly can view them as art.

One lesson, perhaps, is that it may not matter a great
deal whether or not something is art. Whether the
cave drawings are art may depend on the intentions
of their makers, but whether or not they are art,
they are astonishingly beautiful, and reveal a whole
world--and that's what matters.

[Jack]

You didn't tell me if you'd want to look at it every day, Cran.

Here you go again, just let you think about it:



Here's my take on it: the coloring is cold, first and foremost, and I suspect the lady portrayed doesn't quite look like that. If she does, there are better ways to show her beauty through composition, including her pose, choice of colors, and use of lighting. The mouth seems disproportionate. If it isn't, the painter's technique makes it look so. The eyes are doing two different things. This may be physiological, but color, lighting, and positioning can determine whether physical idiosyncrasies greet the viewer as character or as disturbing asymmetry. It's not a matter of "lying", it's a matter of working out a composition further than just plopping paint down because you have something of a knack.

That's where "art" comes into the equation.

I understand what you're saying now.

[BoneQuint]

I think the word "art" is overused. There's definitely a cachet about it, as if it's something to be aspired to, whereas "craft" is valued, but not enough to make you a celebrity, for example. And we're very much in an "age of celebrity." I think a lot of what people call "art" is motivated by something like "Doesn't this look cool and daring, I hope you are impressed and will like me and maybe give me a lot of money." Which is why the "art" world has a reputation for pretention.

I do think there's a distinction between things made for aesthetic reasons alone, and those made for practical purposes which happen to be beautiful. But I prefer to reserve the word "art" for something more than just whether it should hang on a wall or not, because there's a huge difference between something which touches your soul and reveals deep human truths that can't be said with words, and something that looks nice on a wall. I'd tend to call the second "decoration," not art, and there are many examples of purely decorative crafts.

I agree much of what we call "art" is created for beauty alone. I might use the word "art" colloquially to refer to such a thing, but really I feel it's a decoration. It certainly seems to me that "all jewelry is art" feels dubious, which "all jewelry is decoration" feels fine. But, an exploration of what is beautful and why we find it beautiful, if it goes beyond mere "prettyness" and touches something deeper, can communicate something true, and be art. Art does not have to have a concrete "message" -- actually, if it can be said better with words, it tends to make a weaker artwork, I think.

Like many other words, "art" (like the words "religion" and "love") seems to me to have become watered down, and refers more to the trappings of the thing, not its essence. Even if the word "art" is popularly used to mean something else, there should be a word for art in the sense I've been talking about it.

I think this definition works just as well for music. A utilitarian one does not.

[Nanohedron]

What say you all about this?



A Japanese hibachi in gold and red laquer. It's just a charcoal brazier. Has it been turned into an art form or is it merely a decorated bit of otherwise workaday utilitariana?

[dwinterfield]

something which touches your soul and reveals deep human truths that can't be said with words

I think Quint's describing art as I think of it. (Not meaning to start a tangent, but literature, poetry, song and theatre can be art and the point is they are mostly words.)

Quint's view does raise another question. Is art something that happens through an act of creation? A sense on intent on the part of the artist?

Or is it the product of creation? Regardless of what the creator intended?

I lean toward the second idea - that it's the product, not the act that defines the art.

Another tangent. Is wildlife art, art?

Is this revealing deep human truths that can't be said with words?


or this

[Nanohedron]

I know people who are moved and comforted by such paintings, especially the upper one. The lower has a wider accessibility because of its drama.

[dwinterfield]

Nano - I don't know if wildlife art is art, but I like it.

I also like your hibachi, a lot, and if I had it, it would go on a shelf where I would see it every day.

Isn't laquer a poor material for a hibachi

[Alcona]

I don't post very often, but I thought I'd give my oppinion. I consider art something that has been made to produce or bring out an emotion in the person experiencing it. Be it joy, awe, disgust, fear...... I don't think it's really all about beauty. I'm not so sure about crafts, but I think crafts can also be art. I don't think it's very clear cut.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of something like this?

[Nanohedron]

Nano - I don't know if wildlife art is art, but I like it.

Some people would split hairs and call it "illustration" as opposed to "art". There's some merit to the distinction, perhaps, but then, Norman Rockwell has been dubbed by some as an illustrator rather than an artist, too, yet he showed superb composition in his works. I look for composition in what I see as art, is all. Still, I may not care for the finished product even though the composition is remarkable.

I also like your hibachi, a lot, and if I had it, it would go on a shelf where I would see it every day.

If only it were mine. I'd probably play the philistine and use it for an ice bucket.

Isn't laquer a poor material for a hibachi

The lacquerwork's just the outer cladding. The body itself would be something like a thick layer of fired clay; the outer layers would only get warm at best.

(edited to match dwinterfield's edit...I think I got it right )

[Nanohedron]

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of something like this?

It clashes with my collection of Beanie Babies.

[BoneQuint]

(Not meaning to start a tangent, but literature, poetry, song and theatre can be art and the point is they are mostly words.)

One description of literature I've read before is "saying what can't be said with words, using words."

Quint's view does raise another question. Is art something that happens through an act of creation? A sense on intent on the part of the artist?

That's why I touched on the idea of "unconscious" art. Getting out of your own way, and letting something through that you may not even understand yourself. Of course, it helps to have very highly honed skills, so they can be employed without the "consciousness" interfering too much. Just splashing paint around or banging on a guitar or tossing random angry words on a page won't do it, even if you feel like your "intent" was to communicate something. And highly honed skills alone won't do it, if there's nothing behind it except "look at me" or "isn't this so gorgeous" or whatever. So I feel there has to be something, somewhere, trying to be expressed for it to be true art, even if you don't know exactly what's being expressed. Although the highest, most difficult, rarest, and most affecting art purposefully incorporates an unconscious expression with a conscious one, touching on deep universal truths, I think.

I agree with others, evoking an emotion is certainly communicating, and a great goal of art. Although I don't think providing comfort (if there's nothing else there) is really art.

I don't go around labeling things as "art" or not, it's complex, and I have limited discernment, and it takes honesty and pondering to feel if something is art to you or not. And it may not be the same for everybody.

[Denny]

Getting out of your own way, and letting something through that you may not even understand yourself. Of course, it helps to have very highly honed skills, so they can be employed without the "consciousness" interfering too much.

having the chops and allowing the conscious part of your mind to stay out of the way!

[Nanohedron]

Although I don't think providing comfort (if there's nothing else there) is really art.

Sometimes that's what a person wants out of paintings or prints, rather than a challenge. That's up to the individual and according to his or her inner life. My tastes don't run along those lines, but I don't think the motivation's invalid or that the motivation invalidates a work, nor does it imply that any work that does the trick was necessarily completed for that purpose. "All in the eye of the beholder", and all that.

Back to the idea of a distinction between "art" and "illustration": I don't think it's solely one or the other. I see illustration as a function of art. Art in some way, shape, or form is used in illustration. Some of it is lite fare, some of it is impressive, but it's seldom challenging. I don't think that makes it not-art. If scholars and critics want to hold fast to a caste system and declare illustration as low art, that's their bone to gnaw on. I may not disagree, but I think it's better in the end to follow my own leanings and leave it at that.