bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 24, 2012 - 12:26pm

 

One of the first lessons in writing I had at a college level started with the teacher drawing a picture on the blackboard.  He drew a man painting.  He drew an arrow going from the painter to the painting.

Then he drew that same painting on a wall with a person staring at it.  Then he added an arrow going from the painting to the observer.

Over the first drawing, he wrote the word “Craft.”

Over the second, he wrote “Art.”

He then told us that writing, like drawing or composing music is a craft.  It's something that can be learned, improved upon, changed.  It's a skill that takes thousands of hours to master.  And even when mastered, sometimes it's not that good.

Art, on the other hand, was something that happened when a person interacts with an object.  Somewhere in the mind, a piece of craftmanship (be it a picture, a story, or a song) creates an emotional  or intellectual response. 

That interaction is art.  Writing is a craft. 

That's not to say that the person creating the object can't interpret it as art, but that's a subjective experience that the creator has.  He has more insight into the techniques and intent of the object, but the art isn't the object he created, it's the response he has to that object.

With this model in mind, art is an experience instead of the object that creates that experience.

Somebody in the Writer's Workshop rejected a critique because, she said, “This is my art.  You can't tell me if it's right or wrong.”  (that's a paraphrase).  I was immediately struck by the thought that, “Yes, you created the writing, but the moment you let other people read it, it became their art.  No,  you can't be wrong in creating it, but you can be helped to make your creation more appealing to others so that they can experience the object more fully.”

That's my definition.  Art is subjective, but craftsmanship is a skill.  What do you define art as?

Brandon's picture
Brandon from KCMO is reading Made to Break August 24, 2012 - 12:31pm

Somebody in the Writer's Workshop rejected a critique because, she said, “This is my art.  You can't tell me if it's right or wrong.”

^^^ I love those people. Living in lala land must be fun.

ReneeAPickup's picture
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck Wendig August 24, 2012 - 12:57pm

If you write in notebooks, or keep your writing in a folder on your desktop--then sure, if some asshole opens it up and starts reading it and telling you it's shit--then you have a point. "It's mine, you can't tell me if it's right or wrong." 

The very moment you put your work out there, especially in a work shop setting where you are asking people to comment on what works and what doesn't--you gave it to them. And it might hurt. It might feel like giving a tender piece of your very self. But you gave it. It's not wholly yours anymore. It's only yours in the sense that you created it. 

Which is, of course to say: Toughen up, sweetheart.

Brandon's picture
Brandon from KCMO is reading Made to Break August 24, 2012 - 1:16pm

The very moment you put your work out there, especially in a work shop setting where you are asking people to comment on what works and what doesn't--you gave it to them. And it might hurt. It might feel like giving a tender piece of your very self. But you gave it. It's not wholly yours anymore. It's only yours in the sense that you created it.

^^^ This.

And then the first time a publisher pays you for a job you haven't done yet: that changes the way you think about things.  You can't be the free-spirited artist anymore.  There's a deadline to hit.  There's a department of people waiting for you to get this shit done.  You still get to be creative, but there's a certain pressure on you to do it.

So if you haven't learned time-management yet, better get on it.  It's about the most useful skill a writer can learn.

underpurplemoon's picture
underpurplemoon from PDX August 24, 2012 - 1:20pm

This is a tough one, but a craft seems like someone at the top of his/her game. Art reminds me of starving artists.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 24, 2012 - 1:31pm

Well, art is objective.  Craft really isn't. 

If you think about other professions where this might be apt, you see what I mean.  If you make furniture, that is your craft, right?  And if you are good at it, it is obvious, and if you suck at making a chair, we can tell.  And that isn't objective.

Now how beautiful I find a particular chair someone else has made is objective.  The type of wood used, the finish, whatever, those are eye of the beholder things.

If all the legs are different lengths, he is poor at his craft.

So for writing, there are certain things you can be good at that are not objective.  Those things fall into craft.  Then there are other things that are objective (subject matter I guess), that is part of the art.

 

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 24, 2012 - 1:41pm

I feel like you got objective and subjective mixed up, Avery.  

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 24, 2012 - 1:49pm

That's because I did. 

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 24, 2012 - 1:52pm

Fuck it, we'll change the meanings of the words.  That's easier.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 24, 2012 - 2:02pm

Don't be snippy with me, Bryan. 

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 24, 2012 - 2:03pm

Heh.  I would never be snippy with the Defender of the People.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 24, 2012 - 2:06pm

Just pretend it's because you really love me.  Its been a long week. 

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 24, 2012 - 2:10pm

I love you.

Jose F. Diaz's picture
Jose F. Diaz from Boston is reading Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel August 24, 2012 - 2:10pm

Makes perfect sense bryanhowie. I concur.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 24, 2012 - 2:18pm

Thanks.  I feel better.

GaryP's picture
GaryP from Denver is reading a bit of this and that August 24, 2012 - 3:14pm

I think I love Howie. And that dog.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 24, 2012 - 3:34pm

The literary arts are defined as a discipline, in other words craft.  Art as a definition includes a branch of university study including literature. Synonym include, craft, skill, expertise and mastery. Art is created when one produces a stimulating experience that a viewer apply artistic merit. 

So, I guess what I'm saying is you can write a story with the hope that it has artistic merit, but you must use the discipline of the craft, whatever craft it may be. If you find artistic merit in your own work that's great, but unless it is done masterfully, or with some sort of skill, chances are others may not consider it to have artistic merit. 

 

 

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 24, 2012 - 3:35pm

Howie is lovable but not as lovable as that dog. 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 24, 2012 - 5:23pm

I love this stuff. (Not enough to go to school for it, but...)

There's a quote (which I posted somewhere else on this site) -- "Art is madness; craft is sanity."

In other words, the creative and/or emotive impulse [madness] is harnessed through practiced (or at least intentional) action [sanity.]

Which is one way to look at it, and makes sense, but it's one of those easily quotable sayings that probably over-simplify things. Then again, not everyone cares to or needs to have a fully-vetted theory of art and aesthetics.

The idea that the witness actually imparts meaning unto the art used to bug me, but I think that's because I thought (when I first heard such talk) that the person was suggesting some sort of transference or interference between one set of thoughts (the artist's) and another (the witness's) when it's really more like a series of events, the latter of which does not have an effect on the past (so far as we know.) I've been okay with that idea for a long time. But, viewing it does not make it art. In other words, the viewer does not impart art-hood upon a piece.

That said, I still like the old Greek-style definition, which shall somewhat accurately paraphrase as: Art is that which is brought into being for its own sake and serves no other purpose.

This definition includes stuff you create and never show to anyone.

It also allows one to argue that "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; and to argue this without "snobbery."

It allows for the functionality of a chair to be the craft and the little etched designs which serve no purpose to be the art. (Which could be applied to a semi-artful popular work. The rote bullshit meant to make it popular would be craft; the little touches applied by the craftsman just so he could feel good about such a stinkbomb would be art.)

underpurplemoon's picture
underpurplemoon from PDX August 24, 2012 - 10:56pm

Howie is lovable but not as lovable as that dog.

Howie is just as lovable as that dog...maybe more. Just sayin'. Go Team Howie!

GaryP's picture
GaryP from Denver is reading a bit of this and that August 25, 2012 - 6:38am

Craft observed is art. Is that a true statement? Or is it: Craft observed can be art.

And thus: Craft unobserved is not art.

Does the act of observation make it art?

Does the artist qualify as an observer? So even if the artist never shows it to another person, it's still art because the artist observes it?

What if no one likes it? Is it still art through the act of observation? Does art require a likeability rating?

Let's take a real-world example. Jackson Pollock. I don't know this, but I would hazard that if you could literally ask every person in the United States (yes, I'm restricting it because I believe the U.S. is more close-minded than other parts of the world, so let's say that's the only demographic you can access), you would find that more people do not find it art. Does that mean it's not art? Or do you need only one person to like something to make it art?

And so if the artist is the only one who likes it, it's art?

So: Craft observed and appreciated is art.

Craft observed with indifference (thru the spectrum to hatred) is not art.

However, art is not a constant. As with beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. What is art to one person, is merely craft (or worse) to another. Dude, it's just a piece of shit on a hubcap, it's neither art nor craft. Sweet, that shit on a hubcap really speaks to me. 

[Tangent warning. In a nutshell, this is why I have difficulty plotting stories. My mind goes through all of these philosophical questions and by the end, what seemed like a cool idea (craft observed is art) has me questioning all of my thought processes and I'm then blocked.]

underpurplemoon's picture
underpurplemoon from PDX August 25, 2012 - 10:31am

[Tangent warning. In a nutshell, this is why I have difficulty plotting stories. My mind goes through all of these philosophical questions and by the end, what seemed like a cool idea (craft observed is art) has me questioning all of my thought processes and I'm then blocked.]

[Me too.]

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 25, 2012 - 10:34am

My theory is that art is a subjective experience.  The key word there is not 'subjective', but 'experience'.  Art is something that must be experienced.  Through the interaction between the piece and the observer, art is created in the mind.  

An object is objectively an object, but if given deeper meaning than its practical purpose, it becomes art to the observer (a chair in this example is for sitting, but if you have an emotional reaction to it, then it becomes art (art with a functional purpose, but still art).

Which brings up the idea of 'if a tree falls and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'

Using this model, it would not make a sound.  Sound would be the experience of waves of energy interacting with the eardrum and then having those signals interpretted by the brain).  The tree would still produce energy when it hit the ground, but without someone to 'hear' that energy, it isn't sound.  

If a deaf person sees a tree fall, does it make sound?  Not to the observer.  She may feel the shockwaves, but she hears nothing.  

Another definition of art I've often fallen back onto is that art satifies at least 2 of 3 criteria: It is entertaining, educational, and/or socially significant.  This is brought up in the (NSFW) essay "The Importance of Seeing Tubgirl"

[replying to your tangent:  Write it.  Ideas have no intrisic value, and they only become real when you put them down.  Don't overthink your ideas.  Just get them down on paper.  You can't judge the worth of an idea until it is exposed to the light of day (or the dark of night, depending on what you're writing).  There are a million books that I've read that, if told the idea behind it, I would have discounted as junk.  Many of my stories are this way.  But in writing them, I find that not only was the idea good, the way the story changed my opinion and ideas, but it also helps other people reading it explore the same subject in a new and, hopefully, interesting way.  We all see things differently, and experiencing the process is art.]

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 25, 2012 - 11:11am

Whether someone realizes that a work of art is art may be based on their subjective experience with the work, but whether it is art or not is not.

Can't a person perceive something as art and be wrong?

  • If so, then it's not entirely based on subjective experience of the thing in consideration.
  • If not, then "art" is a useless criterion for evaluating anything.
ReneeAPickup's picture
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck Wendig August 25, 2012 - 11:23am

I think it's less about the observer knowing what to call something and more about whether it illicits a reaction from them. All the super-conservative Christians that got upset about Piss Christ? They can say it isn't art all they want, but by reacting to it so strongly they've proven that it is.

I don't think it's a useless criterion. Think of it this way--I came into the hotel I am staying at and barely noticed the bedspread. Sitting on it now, using it as an example, I can say it's pretty underwhelming. I have no reaction to it emotionally or mentally. The most I think about it is "eh".  Now, when I look at Dali's Swans Reflecting Elephants--I feel something. I can't really describe it, it's not exactly joy, it's not exactly inspiration, it's not exactly anything exactly. But I love that piece and I have a reaction to it every time I see it.

I would bet that most people would have no particular reaction to this bedspread. Therefore--it's not art. If a person did decide that it was the most beautiful thing they ever laid eyes on, and it really moved them--I suppose to them it would be. On the other hand I know I am not the only person who is absolutely moved by Swans Reflecting Elephants.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 25, 2012 - 11:51am

They can say it isn't art all they want, but by reacting to it so strongly they've proven that it is.

So if I insult you and your loved ones and you actually get mad about it, I'm making art?

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 25, 2012 - 12:31pm

Not pleasant art, but it is art.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 25, 2012 - 12:45pm

I disagree. Making a statement is not the same as making art.

People react to things other than art, therefore reaction-inducing media are not automatically artistic.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 25, 2012 - 12:45pm

I agree with JY there.

bryanhowie's picture
bryanhowie from FW, ID is reading East of Eden. Steinbeck is FUCKING AMAZING. August 25, 2012 - 1:59pm

I've definitly seen Avery insult people in a way that felt like art to me.

avery of the dead's picture
avery of the dead from Kentucky is reading Cipher Sisters August 25, 2012 - 4:38pm

But I don't consider my insults a craft.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 25, 2012 - 7:57pm

CRAFT  ---  I insult somebody with a quip specifically designed for them. I may have planned the insult ahead of time or I may have come up with it on the spot; either way, it was designed for the target, which is to say it serves a particular intentional purpose and its efficacy may be measured by the recipient's reaction. If someone thinks it's a really good insult, it is not then elevated to a higher status known as "art."

ART  ---  I sit around and make up insults for people who don't exist. I may do so spontaneously or systematically; either way, they serve no purpose because their targets don't exist, so their insult-hood is imaginary. Even if someone takes one of my pretend insults and uses it on a real person, it would not then make my creation into a crafted insult. If anything, the insult appropriator would have employed their own craftiness to give purpose to an otherwise purposeless phrase; one can imagine a statue being used as a bludgeon, which would not make the sculptor a weapon-smith.

GaryP's picture
GaryP from Denver is reading a bit of this and that August 26, 2012 - 5:20am

Was Don Rickles's act art?

ReneeAPickup's picture
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck Wendig August 26, 2012 - 9:13am

Well obviously the reaction alone doesn't connote art.  But I think that spoken words can be art. I do think stand up comedy is art, a performance art. I think that it is art when it comes from craft, but when interacted with illicits a reaction from the observer.

How's that?

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 10:33am

^ I disagree.

CRAFT --- I make an anatomically-correct model of the human skeleton, accurate to the smallest detail. It takes a great deal of patience and know-how to carve and shape materials into the exact form. Even if someone sees it and thinks, "Wow, that's amazing," it's not art.

ART --- I take an anatomically-correct model of the human skeleton and put it in an abandoned ticket booth for an old theater where pedestrian passers-by can see and wonder why it's there. Even if they don't think it's cool or noteworthy, it can still be art.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 1:06pm

I disagree ^^

They are both art forms, the first a perfect example of a sculpture, the second is a form of street art. Both applying skill and craft, both eliciting a response from a viewer as having artistic merit. Maybe you can come up with a better example, this one falls short I'm afraid.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 2:54pm

You missed the bit earlier about response-arousal not being exclusive to art; or you read it and disagree with it, but don't feel inclined to say why. Either way, I won't rebut your last post until you've cleared that up.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 3:19pm

No, I agree with arousal/response not being exclusive to art. What I'm saying is the two examples you just gave are pretty established forms of art. If you had used, cabinetry for instance, one built with skill but with pure functionality as its only purpose, as an example of craft, I would agree. Even if someone saw this cabinetry and marveled at the craftsmanship, if it was made to a model with no originality and only to serve a purpose, it isn't art. What you did use as an example of craft was someone "carving and shaping" a human form into an exact model.  There isn't functionality mentioned that would negate this object being anything other than something to be observed. Not putting it out on the street, or in an art gallery takes away from the fact that it is art. Sculpture is an art form. I'm not disagreeing with the point, only the example. 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 3:31pm

A scale-model of a current or formerly-produced car is not art.

A miniature mock-up of an existing neighborhood is not art.

An exact replica should never be considered art; its function is to replicate.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 4:00pm

Never? You contradict yourself in the example you have for art, an exact anatomically correct replica of a human skeleton. Just because you put it in the street doesn't make it more "art" than if it was sitting on your fire mantle. 

Scale model of a car, from a kit, agreed, not art.  Whittled from a piece of wood to an exact replica, art. If it helps make my point, put that whittled car on a pedestal in the middle of a busy park. 

A miniature mock-up of a neighborhood would more than likely be to serve some purpose, as in city planning. If it is the exact replica of Emily Dicksons house and put under a glass case in an art museum, art. (this exists)

An exact replica can be done for many reasons and some of them are art, there is no function served to just replicate something. It's either for a purpose or enjoyment, such as your model car example. If someone is compelled to go around replicating for no purpose, or enjoyment, that would be considered possibly obsessive compulsive, and that would even serve a purpose, to placate one's mental illness. 

Give me an example of something that is replicated for sole purpose of being replicated. Not for academic, scientific, work related, or enjoyment purposes. 

I wasn't completely disagreeing with you, but now I am.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 5:31pm

You contradict yourself in the example you have for art, an exact anatomically correct replica of a human skeleton.

I did not contradict myself. The skeleton itself is not already art, and it is not made into art, but is part of an ensemble which collectively makes a work of art (depending on the artist's intent; just throwing a skeleton into a booth for no reason other than to get it out of the way does not make art.)

Scale model of a car, from a kit, agreed, not art.  Whittled from a piece of wood to an exact replica, art. If it helps make my point, put that whittled car on a pedestal in the middle of a busy park.

Someone had to design the model before I can put the kit together. How can that not be art when a car carved from wood is?

A miniature mock-up of a neighborhood would more than likely be to serve some purpose, as in city planning. If it is the exact replica of Emily Dicksons house and put under a glass case in an art museum, art. (this exists)

The only differences between the neighborhood and the house are the functionality and the placement. The functionality is covered by the Greek definition I used earlier and I agree the planner's model is not art. The house in the museum --- putting something in a museum doesn't make it art.

An exact replica can be done for many reasons and some of them are art, there is no function served to just replicate something. It's either for a purpose or enjoyment, such as your model car example. If someone is compelled to go around replicating for no purpose, or enjoyment, that would be considered possibly obsessive compulsive, and that would even serve a purpose, to placate one's mental illness.

Give me an example of something that is replicated for sole purpose of being replicated. Not for academic, scientific, work related, or enjoyment purposes.

I don't need to give an example; it wouldn't prove or disprove anything. Those purposes are all real functions, but some demand exact replication to be of use. Is a model skeleton of use if it is inaccurate? It could be in some cases, but certainly not all. You're arguing that replication is not a function because there are other more specific functions, which does not follow. I never said anything's one and only purpose was replication; but an exact replica must at least replicate. That sounds redundant, but it's not; I'm saying item X, to be a useful model, must replicate. Other functions may or may not depend on its success in that regard.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 6:13pm

Ugh, you buried yourself with the term "never" and now come back with an argument that is contradictory to the "never" statement. 

I never said anything's one and only purpose is to replicate 

Replica's function is to replicate 

I'm not arguing that replication isn't a function. I'm arguing that it also serves, almost exclusively, another function. One of them being Art. 

I am arguing this statement:

An exact replica should never be considered art

You're right, you don't need to give a example.

I see that you like to argue, I don't. I am going to continue to see the flaw in your finite statement, and you will continue to run circles trying to convince me your statements are definitive. I'm a redhead, I won't be swayed. 

I'm saying item X....

Philosophy major?

I'm trying to find a Japanese horror film I haven't seen and doesn't suck.  Can you help me with that?

 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 7:41pm

You really don't see the difference between "function" and "one and only function"?

What flaw in what finite statement?

I'm not running circles; I addressed each portion of your post.

I have no major; only went to school for 1.5 years, part-time.

I'm also a redhead.

If you could just say what art is, you'd have a lot more to stand firm about.                                                                    So far you've suggested that art is ---

  1. based on the viewer's perception
  2. based on the location of the item
  3. a function of an item

I don't watch much new horror from anywhere, but Gozu was pretty weird; maybe you haven't seen that.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 7:41pm

Damn, that's an ugly post; but I'm not willing to edit it any more.

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 8:17pm

Jesus J.Y. 

An exact replica should never be considered art

Flawed and wrong. If you can't see how that is flawed, I can't keep going around. 

If you recall, I wasn't disagreeing with you on any point regarding what is considered art. I found your example of "craft" a poor one.  That was it.  

I didn't say you were running circles trying to convince me, I said, any further discussion would be you running circles because I am not going to be swayed. 

You are breaking my brain and for no real reason. You gave a shitty example of craft, and then followed it up with a flawed statement. See above, if you need to be reoriented. Period. 

I don't need anything firm to stand on, I'm sitting quite comfortably, thank you. 

Redhead ~ figures

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 26, 2012 - 8:23pm

P.S. 

hugs and kisses 

I can respect your fervor. 

"and as for my inflammatory writ, well I wrote it an' I was not inflamed one bit" 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 26, 2012 - 8:41pm

^ Yeah, I'm not going to be mad at you or anything.

BUT...

If you can't see how that is flawed, I can't keep going around.

You haven't shown it to be. And it isn't. That's how.

ReneeAPickup's picture
Class Facilitator
ReneeAPickup from Southern California is reading Wanderers by Chuck Wendig August 26, 2012 - 11:42pm

I disagree with both of you.

One point--cabinetry can very well be art and any dedicated craftsman who produces cabinetry is likely to have some pieces he has made that are outstandingly beautiful and go well above "function".

I really think that most anything can be art, depending on how it's done. For example, I don't think kanji tattoos that (supposedly) say "hope" are all that impressive, but I wouldn't say tattoos are not an art form (and in this case the art and the craft MUST go hand in hand). Another example--I made reference to the bedspread of the hotel I was staying at. Not art. The bedspread I have at home is a Hawaiian quilt, absolutely beautiful. I would as soon hang it on my wall as I would put it on my bed.

JEFFREY GRANT BARR's picture
JEFFREY GRANT BARR from Central OR is reading Nothing but fucking Shakespeare, for the rest of my life August 26, 2012 - 11:55pm

Expert craftsmanship is art; art is the epitome of craft. But since you can't have one without the other, it doesn't matter much, does it?

Stacy Kear's picture
Stacy Kear from Bucyrus, Ohio lives in New Jersey is reading The Art of War August 27, 2012 - 4:14am

A painter paints an exact replica of the Mona Lisa. Art.

@sparrow I was very specific in the kind of cabinetry, basic, built with functionality it's sole purpose. I agree some cabinetry could be considered art. I was trying to give JY a better example of "craft'" than the sculpture he described.

@Jeffrey Grant Barr, agreed. You are no longer my arch nemesis. Sad face

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like August 27, 2012 - 8:35am

Sparrow --- You can enjoy looking at things besides art. You can hang your favorite newspaper article on your wall and it wouldn't become art, nor would your desire to hang it indicate that it is art.

Jeff --- Can't there be poorly made art? Or can art, being the product of a high level of skill [craft] only be liked and disliked?

Stacy --- The Mona Lisa would still be a work of art (I guess.) The replica is of a work of art but is not one itself. If you had a print? It's not the art itself. If you had a cartoon version? It's not the art itself. It's not magic; it's just not the same thing to copy something that already exists as to create it.