General Discussion : Art vs. Craft

Not like I'm Amish or anything.

Baconator? Please, dude.

She can restate it and ask if she "got it" which is what she did. Rather than clarifying you tried to rebut her statements.

In the same post where I said restating doesn't work if you don't understand it, I offered to explain myself.

Maybe if you would actually give a thoughtful reply to what someone is saying,

Later when she asked for a three-sentence summary of my "opinion," I asked for clarification and that was that. She was done. And that's fine. I don't want anybody to argue who doesn't want to. I'm not taking names. But don't act like I'm unwilling to reply. Not only have I been replying to stuff the whole time, in this instance I gave her the opportunity to frame the question however she wanted so that we could go from a point of mutual understanding and she declined.

All I want to know is if you bought a better phone yet?

I like the definition Howie's instructor gave. I spent two years as an Art and Design major in college. All arts are crafts. There are definite techniques and aesthetic theories. If there wasn't, people wouldn't pay 100K to go to art school. The craft is the creation, the art is the product of that creation.

There are few things that are worth 100K, especially when you consider your chances of making money upon graduations. From what I have heard, it definitely isn't worth it. My point was that even something like art, that is supposedly subjective, has a lot of things to learn that are craft.

In the same post where I said restating doesn't work if you don't understand it, I offered to explain myself.

Seriously? Why would you offer to explain it yourself instead of just explaining it? When someone asks if they "got it", that's usually what they are hoping for if they didn't get what you meant.

And I do think you are unwilling to explain your points, because so far, whenever asked to, you find someway to avoid it.

/Sparrow --- I don't know how I earned this animosity and distrust.

You can't accurately restate my "weird shit" if you don't understand it.

Tell me what is unclear and I will attempt to make it clear.  --- the post in contention

That second sentence says it. I asked what in particular she didn't understand or wanted to know. When someone attempts to restate something, even if they understand it, they may change it unless they restate it very carefully. So much stuff has been brought up in this thread, I wanted to know what the question was. That's all. Don't talk about my motives.

If there's something you actually want to know about what I think, say so and stop acting like you know already. If you don't care what I think, stop talking about it.

I honestly and truly do not have any "animosity" for you. I really mean it when I say that I don't get emotionally invested in these kinds of discussions, but enjoy a good debate. I read my husband some of this exchange and it led to a great discussion.

I do, however, think that you are taking a bit of a condescending attitude and then acting like it's all a big misunderstanding. The reason I feel you are doing it purposely is because I don't recall ever seeing this same style of posting from you in the past.

Maybe I'm wrong about either of those points, or both, but that's how you're coming across to me.

I love the random "fuck you" thrown in there. I love AD.

@JY - THAT'S WHAT I SAID YOU SAID! 

But also, what then qualifies you to distinguish what is and what is not art better than, for example, Averydoll.

what then qualifies you to distinguish what is and what is not art

1. The definition of "art" [which has been in question]
2. My knowledge of the work in question and the greater context into which it was borne [which varies from instance to instance]

If I don't have both of those things, I don't get to call stuff "art" and expect people to agree / not tell me I'm wrong. If "art" has no adequate definition, then it's a worthless term; but if it can mean whatever you want it to mean, it's only as useless as people make it to be by throwing it around instead of thinking about stuff.

I don't recall ever seeing this same style of posting from you in the past.

Okay. I don't think I've been this "into" a thread before. Usually I drop a pair of pennies and move on.

but if it can mean whatever you want it to mean, it's only as useless as people make it to be by throwing it around instead of thinking about stuff.

Here is where the fundamental difference between what you are presenting and what I am presenting comes in (because I won't speak for anyone else).

I believe that a more open definition of art leads to MORE thought about an object or production, not less. When you put a strict set of rules on something, then you get to simply say "that is art" or "that is not art". When you say that art is a subjective thing that can mean different things to different people, you can have discussions and reflect on WHY this thing or that thing is art in a general sense and/or to the people who feel that it is art.

For instance, when you said art is something that is created for no other reason than to exist--I think that limits art incredibly. That means anything that is created in order to make a statement (whether that is a visual art, a performance art of literary) is not art. That means that art can't mean anything. 

[Don't read this as a point-by-point rebuttal, but rather an attempted elucidation.]

When I said "it" I was talking about the word "art" not art itself. I haven't suggested that each work of art should only mean one thing to everybody, but I do maintain that whether or not it is art does not depend on the experience of the witness.

Each work of art can be interpreted different ways, and so we can say, (speaking of things which actually are art, by whatever definition,) "art means different things to different people." But so do works of pure craft which display no artistry. So do birthday parties and fireworks and rain puddles and dogs' runny noses. I agree people experience things in different ways; this has nothing to tell us about whether or not something is art.

Also, regarding the bit about art with a "statement," I'd say the "statement" itself is not art, or might not be art, but the manner in which it is conveyed may be. Take a painting which includes an already-common slogan: the slogan itself is not art, but the particular use of the slogan might be, and the painting could be. [This is what I was talking about some time earlier: the elements of a piece being art and/or craft rather than the entire thing; one may have some artful elements in a song but also some utterly inartistic elements as well. I can't imagine there being a certain ratio or proportion of art-to-craft a work must achieve in order to be "entirely art."]

XyZy --- You admit that your post was flippant and you wonder why I didn't respond to it more carefully? Honestly I wasn't sure you were serious about any of it. It's full of sarcasm, baiting rhetorical questions and "demonstrative" examples. But here I will make an attempt:

Do you really consider "consumerism" a function? One single statue serves the function of "consumerism?" Like, in general? Things may be bought and sold even in non-"consumerist" societies. What do you mean? Is it actually a function of the piece itself to be sold? A statue is not sold of its own accord, or by its own nature; someone sells it. People sell things which display artistry and things which don't. I'm not sure it counts as a function of that which was brought into being for its own sake, (regardless of whether we call it "consumerism" or not.)

Why do you need to know whether some thing is art? Why do you insist on considering an entire object as either art or not, when (by my definition) the art need not be the entire object. Did you actually read my whole first post, I wonder, because I address the fact that a piece may display some artistry yet not be altogether a "work of art," but your first two examples don't account for it; you speak as if each item must either be all-or-not-at-all art. It is not so by my definition.

[Let's start with this and see how it goes.]

You mean art? Art is not an adjective; flippant is. They don't work the same way. I see the "irony" on the surface, but not underneath.

I also said it was "full of sarcasm, baiting rhetorical questions and "demonstrative" examples."

Do you dispute that it was flippant, even if it was not entirely and only flippant?

I wouldn't call it that.

David Mendelsohn is far more educated than I am. Read this if you feel like it.

Art; verb (transitive or intransitive; it really doesn't make any difference)

1. to bring into being that which exists only for its own sake and serves no other purpose
2. to come into being for the sake of nothing else
3. to already exist for the sake of nothing else

Infinitive: Art

Present Participle: Art

Past participle: Art

XyZy --- You admit that your post was flippant and you wonder why I didn't respond to it more carefully? Honestly I wasn't sure you were serious about any of it. It's full of sarcasm, baiting rhetorical questions and "demonstrative" examples. But here I will make an attempt:

Actually, I already had a preconcieved notion about why you didn't respond to my post, which you've confirmed: You felt it was full of sarcasm, and baiting rhetorical questions, and you doubted the validity of my examples. And that's a perfectly valid reaction to have to my post, though certainly not the one I was going for, and I now know to tone down my flippancy and humor so that you know I am taking this seriously and not just trying to make fun of the discussion for my own amusement.

So, my response was not wondering why or asking why. It was an attempt to show through example that I think there is a constructive, useful, and ultimately interesting way to respond in the face of what seems to be nothing but sarcasm, rhetorical questions, and statements of doubtful validity. Simply by addressing and responding to what was said, instead of just trying to pressuppose the motives behind saying them and use that assumption as a justification to dismiss all the ideas presented outright, we are now able to have an actual dialogue and not just some contest of who can throw the most clever insult... which is what most internet discussions turn in to, unfortunately. So I do understand your hesitance, and I respect it. But I am also very excited that, with all that behind us, we can now have discourse. Don't worry, I'll take it slow... It's my first time too... well, on the internet... with another person... anyway, moving on.

Do you really consider "consumerism" a function? One single statue serves the function of "consumerism?" Like, in general? Things may be bought and sold even in non-"consumerist" societies. What do you mean? Is it actually a function of the piece itself to be sold? A statue is not sold of its own accord, or by its own nature; someone sells it. People sell things which display artistry and things which don't. I'm not sure it counts as a function of that which was brought into being for its own sake, (regardless of whether we call it "consumerism" or not.) [Bold added for emphasis]

Well, I had only intended it to be a synonym for "thoughtless consumption" or "merely to make money". I thought the word "consumerism" was slightly less heavy-handed and judgemental than the phrases you used in your postulate, so maybe I could avoid some of those connotations with a more neutral word and prevent confusion. I was wrong as ignored the particular baggage it carries as well. And rereading I can see the clause that could give the impression that I was implying that a statue could somehow perform the function of consumerism. (mostly because I think that was the exact phrase...) So, fair enough, it's an imprecise statement. And now that you've pointed it out, I can refine the argument. I will rephrase after I address your next paragraph as well.

As for the bold, this is why I am excited to have this discussion. Because you make very interesting points and ask very interesting questions. On this point I wholeheartedly agree. But if to create something to do something specific with it after its creation (such as sell it for money) is not an additional purpose outside of 'for its own sake,' then what is? And also, if intention or method of creation doesn't change an object's nature or intrinsic value, what does or can?

Why do you need to know whether some thing is art? Why do you insist on considering an entire object as either art or not, when (by my definition) the art need not be the entire object. Did you actually read my whole first post, I wonder, because I address the fact that a piece may display some artistry yet not be altogether a "work of art," but your first two examples don't account for it; you speak as if each item must either be all-or-not-at-all art. It is not so by my definition.

Um... your unnecessary personal comments aside; you are correct. My first example (the statues are actually a single example, which I will illustrate shortly) doesn't directly address that postulate. It also completely ignores the postulate that things which are created and not shown to anyone can still be art. And I ignore them both for the same reason, they are not relevant to the example. they are also not refuted by my example. As I continue to build the argument, I do add and address more of your postulates. In fact my very next example did include the "doesn't have to be all-or-not-at-all art" postulate.

But perhaps our misunderstandings are a bit more fundamental. Maybe my format or methodolgy was confused by my attampts at humor. So let me be clear and concise:

I have not yet disagreed with your argument. I disagree with how you are structuring your argument and how you are "defending" your argument, and I have disagreed with a particular statement you've made. But I can't really disagree with your argumentas a whole, because I don't really understand it, I keep finding contradictions in it which you deny are there. So what I was trying to do in my initial post was to construct a sensible argument that I could understand, and which was not inherently contradictory, using your definition and suppositions. But I understand if I lost track of that for the sake of humor, so let me put it in a more formal logic format:

Axiom - Given that art is that which is brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose

Postulates - Such that:

1. "art" produced for the express purpose of thoughtless consumption (ie mindless entertainment) or merely to make money with absolutely no regard for quality is not actually art at all

Thesis: If J. Y. creates a statue for its own sake and no other purpose; that is art.

Antithesis: If XyZy creates a statue for the express purpose of merely to make money; that is not art.

This is where the argument stands before Howie enters the equation in a more clear and concise form. So I ask now, is there something that invalidates the thesis or the antithesis? They seem perfectly logical to me. That's why I started here and this simply, because this actually makes a logically cohesive statement, which was all I was trying to do. Something that I could build upon as I constructed the argument, but this is as far as I got before you started to try to pull the argument apart, and I don't understand why. I assume you agree with my axiom, and my postulate, because they're yours, so is there something wrong with the theses? Well logically, I don't see anything wrong. What do you see that I don't? And remember. This is just the first step. If this can be logically coherent, (which I think I've shown it can) then we can add more distinctions and more postulates and create new (more interesting) theses to explore. I did this because it was simple, and because it worked, so I could move on to the next step. So if you agree that it is a logically valid statement, can I go ahead and add Howie and his postulate to the argument and make a new thesis?

We can also discuss if it's even a meaningful or useful way to use your definition, and I am really excited for that. But I don't see how it is relevant (or refuting of my conclusion) that your definition can also answer a different question that I haven't spcifically asked. You're right, I didn't specifically ask whether something that has some artistic and some non-artistic qualities was still art, or whether it was possible for something to have some artistic qualities and some non-artistic qualities, and still not be art, and the fact that I didn't ask that question doesn't refute the question I did ask. (I also don't see a fundamental difference between that question and the one I did ask, just another layer of complications before coming to the same anacrisis. So maybe we can explore this.)

So if you don't like that I used your definition to answer the question "Is 'something' art?", fine. I don't like it either. I doubt the usefulness of asking that question about anything (in whole or part.) I asked the question because your definition inherently answers it. If you don't like that, then change your definition so that I can't use it to answer that question anymore. Or give me a better question to ask. But giving me another postulate (such as "art is not a be all-or-not-be-at-all notion") is not the same as giving me more questions to ask, especially considering that as I add more postulates to build the argument, I'm already necessarily changing my theses to reflect and address the new postulates.

Art; verb (transitive or intransitive; it really doesn't make any difference)

    to bring into being that which exists only for its own sake and serves no other purpose
    to come into being for the sake of nothing else
    to already exist for the sake of nothing else

Infinitive: Art

Present Participle: Art

Past participle: Art

Now, if you're serious, that seems to lend itself to more interesting questions. It still doesn't restrict itself from being able to answer the question "is 'something' art", which means we still can use it to do so, and it still isn't any more useful as a definition if the purpose of having the definition in the first place is to talk objectively about art, but I think it does may least lend itself to some more interesting questions to ask, or at least (in some sense) adds new "somethings" to ask whether or not they're art. I will have to think on this new development a bit before I can comment on it, so I'll let you get a few words in edgewise here.

@BH - That is also an interesting statement, I may belabour you with a response later as well.

[Thought about this while outside and came back. I guess I'm a junkie.]

With regards to the usefulness of my definition (and any definition, I guess) ---

I don't expect and have never expected that, even if I do thoroughly argue in favor of my definition beyond all doubts, the world will "wake up" and start using my definition of "art."

I do believe that some people may put too much emphasis on whether or not their favorite book or album or whatever is not considered to be art by some critical establishment. I strongly believe in the value of expertise. I also know that experts and wannabe experts can be (but are certainly not always) condescending. But liking something a lot doesn't make it art. As I've said before, people like all kinds of things besides art; people are moved by all kinds of things besides art. If a song moves you, but it isn't art, your love for it shouldn't be diminished. Nor even should your love increase if it turns out to be art, because the work itself is what you like. Suppose you don't know whether it's art or not; you can still like it or not. I haven't argued that art is of a higher order than craft.

I also dislike the idea of cutting the artist out of the question of "is it art?" Putting the power on the witness seems too relativist and circular; how would the witness have any idea of what "art" is if they had never encountered an ostensibly concrete example of it? I understand that saying the artist reserves all the power may make "The Artist" seem bloated, at worst a figure of pure solipsistic conceit, but it would not be so if people didn't place value on the "art" distinction.

Should they value the "art" distinction? Of course this depends on what that distinction actually distinguishes, and on the priorities of the witness.

Bloody Hell.  

Fight, fight, fight!!!  I want to see a Beyond Thunderdome literary death match.