Art vs Craft

[Giliell]

I had a discussion with my BIL about this
Well, he likes to paint (and is quite good), I like to craft (mainly sewing and embroidery, yes, I know, very girly) and what really annoyed me was his kind of snobbish attitude that painting is considered art and therefore "higher culture" than crafts.
First of all, this is of course a fairly recent distinction. For a long time, painting was a craft.
Secondly, I don't see big differences in the stuff itself

99,9% of all paintings produced in this world today are by hobby artists. Their quality varies a lot and although they might be nice to look at, it's not what revolutionizes our perception the way Picasso did.
Same is true for most crafts and for dressmaking.
Both use their knowledge of times gone by, old styles, motives, techniques. Both make use of readily avaible stuff out of mass production. I don't keep sheep for the wool and he doesn't mix his colours himself.
In both areas you can spend a hell lot of money on stuff that doesn't justify that amount of money in terms of work or material.
In both areas there's a huge industrial production that's cheap.

So, why should one get a label with a high prestige and the other one be sneezed at as if everbody could do it?

 

[lrkun]

Art is defined as the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"

Craft is defined as trade: the skilled practice of a practical occupation; "he learned his trade as an apprentice"

---

From these definitions, I gather that craft is the higher of the two, for it has a practical purpose. But it can also be something that people could appreciate, depending on their taste and bias.

If you make a shoe. You can use it for practical purpose for that which as shoe is meant to be used as. However, if you make a designer shoe, something that is expensive and is appreciated for it's beauty, it becomes an art, for people appreciate it due to the maker's creativity.

Now for that which is solely for art's sake, is almost always impractical, because it doesn't have a purpose nor it's something that has any practical value. Like paintings, it's nice to look at, for it shows the maker's creativity, however, what will you use it for? Nothing, except to brag about it.

Craft wins over art. Hehe.

 

[Unwardil]

To the notion that craft is somehow better than art.

If you think that's true, think what kind of a species we'd be if we never painted murals in caves. Art is the ability to reify the imagination if only in a very small way and it is a necessary intermediary step to take between the now and progress.

As for which is better, well, it's all a hobby for personal enjoyment isn't it? The craft ends up with something you can wear, the painting with something you can hang on the wall to make the place look nicer. Seems like they're pretty equal in that regard and that's exactly what I'd say on the larger scale too. We need, in the basic sense, stuff that is crafted but art makes those basic needs more enjoyable.

 

[lrkun]

To the notion that craft is somehow better than art.

If you think that's true, think what kind of a species we'd be if we never painted murals in caves. Art is the ability to reify the imagination if only in a very small way and it is a necessary intermediary step to take between the now and progress.

As for which is better, well, it's all a hobby for personal enjoyment isn't it? The craft ends up with something you can wear, the painting with something you can hang on the wall to make the place look nicer. Seems like they're pretty equal in that regard and that's exactly what I'd say on the larger scale too. We need, in the basic sense, stuff that is crafted but art makes those basic needs more enjoyable.

To you, which covers which? Art covers crafts or crafts covers arts or craft and arts are independent and distinct?

 

[Unwardil]

They're independent concepts and both of equal value was my point. They are mutually supporting and use many of the same skills though, but if I had to make the distinction, a craft is making something that already exists in some quantity and art is making something that does not exist.

 

[Giliell]

I'd personally say that art is like 90% craft anyway
I'm creative as hell, but I'd never get any decent painting done, I just lack the talent and skill, not the creativity. That's why I focussed my attention on something where my abilities match my talents.
In painting you have to learn the craft, too.
How are colours mixed? What's perspective and how do I get it? All that stuff.

I personally wouldn't say crafts is better than art, I just think it rather condescending of somebody to think they are doing high art and others are doing lowly crafts because the can realistically draw an apple.

I admit, my pride is hurt

 

[Unwardil]

Oh absolutely.

It's probably more 95% craft, 4% artistry and 1% blind chance.

Realistically drawing an apple can be better achieved by a camera and a printer. That's not art. The skill required to accurately draw an apple can be used to make art however.

 

[lrkun]

If art is ... and crafts is ..., don't you think a person's opinion on the end result tells us whether if something is art or a craft?

 

[Eidolon]

I think craft is the mid point between art and science. As it requires an artistic attribute to create such things, and a defined set of skills and procedures to produce it. On one side, art can be anything. A shit smear in the toilet can be considered art to some, and on the other side science, has to be composed of various absolutes.

Craft falls in the middle because it requires a little of both. You can make a box out of popsicle sticks and make it look however you want, but in order to construct that box, you have to follow certain structural guidelines or it will not hold together. Whereas if you paint something, you can do it pretty much however you want and it still be considered art even if it is just a globe of paint. on the other end, something like building an engine in a car is considered a science as there is no room to be artsy about it and still make it work. So neither is more or less valuable than the other, its just the middle ground.

This isn't to say that art doesn't require skill and technique, but the skill and technique required various greatly from person to person. So a particular brush stroke may have a specific name, but each person does it in their own way.

Just my take on it.

 

[televator]

Being an artist myself in high school who was "voluntold" to enter school exhibitions by my teachers, I always approached drawing and painting as a craft. I always felt I was "crafting" my vision after all. The craft was my means. I think the reason why painting and crafting are viewed independently is probably because painting is considered to be an outlet that is readily approachable for much more visceral ends. Creating something that invokes visceral reactions in a person perhaps is not directly correlated to methodical crafting to the end observer. I personally think it's a misconception.....

 

[Case]

Picasso didn't revolutionize perception, or anything else for that matter.

That aside, it depends on how you define art. Just because some dude paints, doesn't mean it's art. Sewing isn't necessarily not art, either.
I myself find art to be sublime, something extra that is very hard to produce intentionally, if not impossibly so, but easily recognized by those who have a mindset similar to the 'artist's'. Things can be art to some people and not art to others, they can be created by man or fallen into place by random occurrence, require a lot of work or just a simple idea and a minute to spare. Art may carry a message or be artistic solely through its sheer beauty. Ugly things however which do not carry a message seem unlikely candidates for art. Anyway... proceed.

 

[Pulsar]

I define art as creative craftsmanship.
My criterion is simple: if you have to explain to someone why a certain work is art, then it isn't. Art speaks for itself.
Van Eyck, Rubens, Caravaggio: that's art, no one will dispute that.
Pollock, Mondriaan: that's garbage, and I don't care that a club of snobs disagrees.
/rant

 

[PAB]

Picasso didn't revolutionize perception, or anything else for that matter.

That aside, it depends on how you define art. Just because some dude paints, doesn't mean it's art. Sewing isn't necessarily not art, either.
I myself find art to be sublime, something extra that is very hard to produce intentionally, if not impossibly so, but easily recognized by those who have a mindset similar to the 'artist's'. Things can be art to some people and not art to others, they can be created by man or fallen into place by random occurrence, require a lot of work or just a simple idea and a minute to spare. Art may carry a message or be artistic solely through its sheer beauty. Ugly things however which do not carry a message seem unlikely candidates for art. Anyway... proceed.

Painting is not always art because : Art is ideological and is simply a value. Cave Art is only 'Cave-Art' rather than just 'Cave-Painting' because of the retrospective associations we give it with art history. It is fairly known and agreed as far as i know that Cave painting was a spiritual/magical practice. There was no disciplines and ideas of Art at that time. In fact Art as it is commonly known today is based on a distinction which established itself around the 17th century =The division of arts from craft and the establishment of fine art.. So is of fairly recent origin. The idea that Art is some essential part of humanity or a valid product of the heights of human civilization is purely mystical-it is false, (however a claim that e.g creativity is an essential part of humanity is a valid claim creativity does not equal Art)

To understand the distinction of craft to Art, Art must be dissected into two vague concepts. Being, Art-capital A and the 'arts'. The arts being a remainder of the concept of art being anything with a rule base e.g the art of cooking , the art of painting. And Art being the more modern construction once called the 'polite Arts' more commonly known as 'Fine Art'. Fine Art is firmly embedded in cultural class distinctions of legitimate and 'authentic' tastes. Leading in relation to the Cultured individual - the civilized 'man'.

Some Art such as some forms of painting relies on high 'craft' skills, however all that constitutes something as Art is that it is accepted and treated as Art, via aesthetic perceptions and interpretations, placing of the work in an arts institution and most importantly the social networking involved in the 'art-world'. For 'craft' to be art all that needs to happen is for the producer to be an 'Artist' e.g Tracey Emin's Quilts. And thus be looked at and spoken of as Art in the Art gallery/museum ,and so on.

Good Reading :
- Larry Shiner, The invention of Art , A cultural history
-Rodger L. Taylor, Art, an enemy of the people
-George Dickie, Art and the aesthetic

 

[Case]

Don't quote me when all your reply's going to be is some random spiel, thank you.

 

[PAB]

Don't quote me when all your reply's going to be is some random spiel, thank you.

i was following from your comment on painting, do the reading first please before discrediting, if i wasn't clear enough please ask questions.

 

[Yfelsung]

Anything one creates for the simple love of creating is art.

Something created for the sole purpose of turning a profit, to me, loses the quality of being art.

Therefore the same thing, take music for example, could be art and not art at the same time.

That is not to say that the minute someone makes money of art that it's not art, it's the motivation.

The musician who goes "Hey, we should write a song like this to be a single" ceases to be an artist, in my personal opinion.

 

[PAB]

Anything one creates for the simple love of creating is art.

Something created for the sole purpose of turning a profit, to me, loses the quality of being art.

Therefore the same thing, take music for example, could be art and not art at the same time.

That is not to say that the minute someone makes money of art that it's not art, it's the motivation.

The musician who goes "Hey, we should write a song like this to be a single" ceases to be an artist, in my personal opinion.

What do you think then of the Artist Andy Warhol, who said making Art is making money. And had a 'factory' type set-up, a simplistic capitalist system , in which he employed workers to produce his work. Which is now done my other artists such as Anish Kapoor. These people are Artists, and produce 'Art' and people 'consume' it.

 

[Yfelsung]

Anything one creates for the simple love of creating is art.

Something created for the sole purpose of turning a profit, to me, loses the quality of being art.

Therefore the same thing, take music for example, could be art and not art at the same time.

That is not to say that the minute someone makes money of art that it's not art, it's the motivation.

The musician who goes "Hey, we should write a song like this to be a single" ceases to be an artist, in my personal opinion.

What do you think then of the Artist Andy Warhol, who said making Art is making money. And had a 'factory' type set-up, a simplistic capitalist system , in which he employed workers to produce his work. Which is now done my other artists such as Anish Kapoor. These people are Artists, and produce 'Art' and people 'consume' it.

Well, obviously this is just my personal opinion, if the art is made to make money, it's not art. There's a lot of stuff some consider art that I don't. I think art should be a window into the artist. A lot of Warhol's stuff just feels... sterile.

An artist would produce art whether or not it made them money.

But again, this is just how I personally look at it.

 

[Unwardil]

Still depends.

Art is imagination. Craft is skill. You can have one or the other or both in equal measure and I don't think the motivation behind the creation makes a difference. When I'm playing music, there isn't honestly anything that's really going through my head, not if I'm doing it right, but somebody listening might read into it some nebulous emotional response that doesn't effectively communicate verbally. When that happens, my craft becomes art. It doesn't matter that I'm playing the gig because I'm being paid to and that without that paycheck I wouldn't be playing at all. Art is definitely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[PAB]

Yeah, i get what you mean. Those personal ideas of yours are reflective of romantic aesthetics. Which is interesting when it must be conceded that we inherit the idea of Art. The personal judgement of an individual of something being Art and something Not-being Art is obviously never purely individual.

I myself, as an art student found myself questioning this. The thing to bare in mind is that saying something is art is to place that particular cultural activity or product in a socio-cultural hierarchy Art (Fine Art) being the top . What then has to be asked is if these judgements are really valid .

I recently presented this video clip from an old British comedy which touches upon the issue.;