Art of craft?

[SamScribble]

Art or craft?

I recently raised the issue of readers not being able to recognise fiction for what it is and penalising stories for the ‘bad behaviour’ of fictional characters. In your comments (for which I thank you), several of you raised the issue of fiction as art. My personal opinion is that, with very few exceptions, competent fiction is 99 percent craft.

One of my grandfathers could, with his team of horses, plough a furrow that some people might have considered a work of art. But my grandfather was a craftsman not an artist. My other grandfather made model ships for shipping companies. He too was a craftsman. And my father could mentally add columns of six (or eight) digit numbers faster than a person with a calculator. Was that an art? I think it was a craft, a craft at which he was very, very good. But a craft nevertheless.

 

[weftandwarp]

Isn't most art crafted? Art is the perceptual part. Craft is bringing it to fruition. The perceptual part has to be original. In being original it can be derived. This brings it to being more about semantics than any thing useful.


I wonder if I am alone. If so there is more chance I'm an artist.

 

[KindofHere]

.................

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm inclined to the view that "craft" is the technical ability to create, "art" is the product of such creation, and the use of terms like "writer", "artist", "painter", "designer", "architect" etc.. to be oriented more towards a specific discipline.

There's no doubt in my mind that the output of a superb craftsman, in terms of an object, will be a "work of art" with aesthetic qualities. Doesn't matter what the object, if it expresses a creative input from its maker, I call that art. It can be crap art (aka kitsch ??), but art nevertheless.

Writing is possibly trickier, because I think a "creative idea" is also required. An extremely well written contract, for example, might contain suberb "craftsmanship" in the sense of the perfect legal phrase, but does that make it a "work of art"? Not so sure. It might be, but I'm inclined not to call it art.

Taking Sam's agument, I'd say that not every writer of fiction is an artist, and I agree that being a competent craftsman is a pre-requisite - and having the technical chops AND the ability to pull together an idea or two is essential.

 

[Handley_Page]

I recently raised the issue of readers not being able to recognise fiction for what it is and penalising stories for the ‘bad behaviour’ of fictional characters. In your comments (for which I thank you), several of you raised the issue of fiction as art. My personal opinion is that, with very few exceptions, competent fiction is 99 percent craft.

One of my grandfathers could, with his team of horses, plough a furrow that some people might have considered a work of art. But my grandfather was a craftsman not an artist. My other grandfather made model ships for shipping companies. He too was a craftsman. And my father could mentally add columns of six (or eight) digit numbers faster than a person with a calculator. Wass that an art? I think it was a craft, a craft at which he was very, very good. But a craft nevertheless.

To my mind, 'craft' is the ability to execute a task in a competent manner.
To do it with style and universal approval is 'art'.

My ol' Grandad could add a column of figures with no apparent problem. My Dad was almost as good.
Me?
Forget it; I can barely add 2 and 2.

 

[lovecraft68]

Writing is generally describes as 'the craft of writing'

On the other hand I have a tax exempt ID that I obtained from the state of RI because authors fall under 'artist'.

I think it can go either way and this is a question of semantics rather than an actual difference.

 

[oggbashan]

Marcel Duchamp's found pieces were a serious contribution to what is Art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

His view appeared to be 'Art is what the artist says is Art' but what he was actually suggesting is that an Artist makes the viewer see or experience something differently. Art makes us think again - or it should.

 

[Polyacrylate]

I would really consider art to be any creative application intended to appeal to emotional or aesthetic tastes of an audience.

The word art, in modern parlance, often gets used as to describe things intended to entertain, things intended to educate, things intended to inspire.

I would say that virtually every form of the arts has an element of craft to it. They all require skillsets that need to be built, practiced, and maintained.

And many people who have a job they are passionate about will, at some point, describe their work in terms related to art. I've heard lawyers describe actions or cases with reverence and artful terminology, cosmetologists talk about how much creativity went in to making a soccer mom look stunning for her date night, and drug dealers talk about the transcendent artistry of someone who is able to make pure, blue crystal meth... Wait, that last one was from Breaking Bad.

Hell, I'm an engineer, and framed on the wall next to me as I type this is a frame set of emergency venting calculations that I find particularly inspiring. Which, I'm sure Mrs. Polyacrylate would argue, should disqualify me from talking about art in the first place.

My point here is that all art is a craft, and in almost every case, any craft can be an art in the eye of the right beholder.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Painting, dancing, music and literature I consider art, specifically visual arts. As an artisan I consider myself a skilled craftsmen, or a worker at a skilled trade using largely my own hands. My pieces, while visually pleasing, are generally functional.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I think anything, done well enough, becomes art.

Consider a lawn rake. In the hands of the mindless, the worthless or an irritated 13-year-old doing chores, it merely moves stuff around. In the hands of a master however, arranging the stones in a Japanese garden, it becomes an artist's implement and the result true art.

A swordmaker is a tradesman or craftsman. Some are good, some merely produce utilitarian blades. A few, a very few, Japanese swordsmiths such as Sumitani or Satatsugu have produced swords of such perfection that the individuals were formally recognized as living national treasurers. Their work is art by any standard.

Or how about this? I've stacked wood before, but whoever did this was, to my way of looking at it, an artist. http://theawesomedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/wood-pile-art-2.jpg

My way of seeing it, anyway.

 

[LoquiSordidaAdMe]

Assuming the goal of a craft is to create something functional, then at some point any craft can become art. It all depends on the craftsman's desire and ability to make a functional piece of work attractive.

I know enough about woodworking to build a functional shelf, but it would be a base, ugly thing. Norm Abram (the master carpenter from 'This Old House' and 'New Yankee Workshop') could build an equally functional shelf and imbue it with a level of aesthetic appeal that would elevate it to a work of art.

EDIT: Or what TarnishedPenny said better while I was writing mine.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Assuming the goal of a craft is to create something functional, then at some point any craft can become art. It all depends on the craftsman's desire and ability to make a functional piece of work attractive.

I know enough about woodworking to build a functional shelf, but it would be a base, ugly thing. Norm Abram (the master carpenter from 'This Old House' and 'New Yankee Workshop') could build an equally functional shelf and imbue it with a level of aesthetic appeal that would elevate it to a work of art.

EDIT: Or what TarnishedPenny said better while I was writing mine.

I believe that's what distinguishes a craftsman from an artisan.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Isn't everything art now a days.

When someone's wants to elevate the greatness or the importance of their work, it is referred to as 'art.'

I looked up the definition (yeah, I know) and I tried to find when music and writing and acting became art, but I couldn't find a year.

I consider art to be painting, sculptures, things that are aesthetically pleasing to the eye (and not that weird Picasso shit) but that doesn't matter, because that not what art means.

I guess if I wanted to be really poignant I could say that art was anything that touched you deep and made you feel something beyond what you expected. But I don't know.

Arts one of those things, like beauty, it's up to individual I guess. Maybe art is only art if someone else considers it art.

I don't consider any of the books I read art, or the music I listen too (although I do find some music to be quite beautiful) but give me something visually appealing that I don't have the talent to create, and that's art to me, and I don't give a shit if my definition is limited. It's my life, I'll twist any word to suit me.

if what Picasso did wasn't art, I doubt people would still be debating his work a century after he created it.

For me, art doesn't exist in some object, be it a painting, a book or a skyscraper. Art exists in the emotional or philosophical exchange between the creator and their audience.

 

[SimonDoom]

I take an expansive view of the terms "art" and "artist" because defenses of narrower definitions inevitably devolve into debates about individual taste, and there's no way to resolve such debates. Every work of fiction, no matter how bad, is "art," although many stories are not good art.

I don't think of my coffee pot as a work of art, but if I put it on display in an art gallery, it would be art. There's no reason people can't look at it as art the way they would look at anything else as art.

 

[TxRad]

The act of writing is not art. Painting a picture with words on the other hand can or can't be art depending on the picture.

Delusions of grandeur are epic in some cases. I'm the perfect case in point. I'm a storyteller with oral skills. Oral as in dialog. So many perverts, so little time.

 

[KindofHere]

...............

 

[Polyacrylate]

The act of writing is not art. Painting a picture with words on the other hand can or can't be art depending on the picture.

Delusions of grandeur are epic in some cases. I'm the perfect case in point. I'm a storyteller with oral skills. Oral as in dialog. So many perverts, so little time.

Now, good oral is an art, and let nobody ever tell you different.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

,s

?...art doesn't exist in some object, be it a painting, a book or a skyscraper. Art exists in the emotional or philosophical exchange between the creator and their audience.

To me, the function of art is to evoke emotion. It needn't be a pleasant emotion - consider the horror and outrage of Picasso's Guernica or Goya's Disasters of War series. Much of the trash hanging on gallery walls fails that test, sadly.

Some art, to follow your thesis, certainly exists in the direct interchange between artist and audience. Musicans and orators fall into this class. Other artists, like painters, authors, sculptors, architects and so forth, probably never see their audience. Indeed, the unknown artist who created Tutankhamen's exquisite gold dagger has no link to his audience millenia later than that one solitary object.

 

[RocketLauncher]

Now, good oral is an art, and let nobody ever tell you different.

True dat. An art I perfected long ago.

 

[SimonDoom]

I guess if I had to define art -- I resist defining things like this in general, but I'll give it a stab -- I'd say art is anything that is created or presented for an aesthetic purpose, or is viewed or appreciated aesthetically. It's not limited in any way by the thing itself. Whether or not it's art depends on the intention of the creator or the viewer.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I guess if I had to define art -- I resist defining things like this in general, but I'll give it a stab -- I'd say art is anything that is created or presented for an aesthetic purpose, or is viewed or appreciated aesthetically. It's not limited in any way by the thing itself. Whether or not it's art depends on the intention of the creator or the viewer.

That's not bad!

 

[MelissaBaby]

To me, the function of art is to evoke emotion. It needn't be a pleasant emotion - consider the horror and outrage of Picasso's Guernica or Goya's Disasters of War series. Much of the trash hanging on gallery walls fails that test, sadly.

Some art, to follow your thesis, certainly exists in the direct interchange between artist and audience. Musicans and orators fall into this class. Other artists, like painters, authors, sculptors, architects and so forth, probably never see their audience. Indeed, the unknown artist who created Tutankhamen's exquisite gold dagger has no link to his audience millenia later than that one solitary object.

I don't think the exchange has to be directly personal. That's the wonder of art, to me. If I can look at a painting that was created centuries before my birth or read a poem written by someone I will never meet, and feel some part of what the artist felt or sought to convey, we have shared an emotional communication.

 

[yukonnights]

I view 'art' as something 'crafted' with the goal to achieve an 'intention'. Whether or not that intent was accomplished is where the concept of "art being in the eye of the beholder" comes into play.

The "intent" is in the mind of the artist...there is an incentive to express this idea, thought, vision, belief, etc, to others. The 'craft' is the current level of whatever skill is present in regard to the mechanics required to make that "intent" obvious to another person.

As an example; I conceived, researched and wrote my latest story in my mind...with the specific goal of trying to 'craft' an expression of that 'intention' for the world at large. The story has a theme (message) that I wanted to 'paint with words' in a way that I hoped would induce thinking in others.

In the end; I think the attempt at 'art' is without doubt present... that my 'craftsmanship' may not do justice to the lofty intention may make it 'bad art'...or maybe just whatever the 'eye of the reader' thinks it is.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I don't think the exchange has to be directly personal. That's the wonder of art, to me. If I can look at a painting that was created centuries before my birth or read a poem written by someone I will never meet, and feel some part of what the artist felt or sought to convey, we have shared an emotional communication.

I'll buy that.

 

[oggbashan]

One thing puzzles me about Art:

If I look at say a painting and what I see and appreciate is NOT what the artist intended, but something else based on my own experience...

Am I reacting to the artist's intention, or creating something myself?

Two examples:

1. On my study wall I have an amateur picture of a small steamship in Avonmouth Gorge. The ship is approaching the span of Brunel's suspension bridge at slack water high. The stillness of the water is emphasised by the reflections.

Technically it is poor. But the atmosphere it evokes means something to me. I have passed under that bridge at slack water. What I see in the picture is MY memory of that event, not the artist's depiction.

2. At our local Art collective a couple of years ago there was a sci-fi/fantasy exhibition by invited artists. One of the small pictures was of the Bull Dance at Knossos, Crete. The horns of the Minotaur (off-stage) cast a shadow across the bull court. I asked the artist what he meant by that shadow. His reply:

"I don't know. It was like that in the postcard I copied to do the picture." He produced the original postcard to show me. His picture was far more powerful and menacing than the bare line drawing to show what that part of Knossos might have looked like. He had created something when he didn't understand the imagery, or even the mythology, that is the essence of Ancient Knossos. Was he inspired beyond his own knowledge? What he had produced was far more than his intention.

In those two examples is it MY understanding that makes the works more than they are? Or is it the Muse working through and despite the artist's relative incompetence?