Art vs Craft

[Andiferous]

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

I think because people are being patronising (see that? ). I think people get very defensive about art because they feel they constantly need to justify its' existence in today's climate, but elitism drives me a bit nutty, personally. And just maybe with so much leisure time today, there are so many more of us dabbling in the arts and the competition is unruly. Craft is art, but one might spot some political and other correlations between the two, were one to look closely enough. Maybe. Or are snobs. Of course, heh.

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.

Since when does art not involve skill? Are you suggesting that art is art because it serves no function? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Art (and craft) is in the eye of the beholder. I see no difference.

 

[Unwardil]

Art is what happens behind the eyes, Craft what happens infront. A little more clear? Obviously to express an artistic idea requires skill, or craft, but it is that nebulous idea it's self which constitutes art and is the thing about it which is hard to place a value on.

 

[Andiferous]

Art is what happens behind the eyes, Craft what happens infront. A little more clear? Obviously to express an artistic idea requires skill, or craft, but it is that nebulous idea it's self which constitutes art and is the thing about it which is hard to place a value on.

Oh, I think I understand now. Essentially, all art must have a craft; so what we commonly refer to as 'craft' could very well be the process of making art. I would agree with this conclusion if I interpret correctly.

 

[Unwardil]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Always difficult to actually put words to something that, by definition deals with super lingual concepts.

 

[PAB]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Always difficult to actually put words to something that, by definition deals with super lingual concepts.

Are you saying Art is by definition something beyond linguistic concepts ??....please expand.

 

[Andiferous]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Always difficult to actually put words to something that, by definition deals with super lingual concepts.

Are you saying Art is by definition something beyond linguistic concepts ??....please expand.

I would say so. In that art - even prose and poetry - is a form of communication in itself.

 

[PAB]

:? .......i would say defiantly not. In that Art is not a form of communication in itself but a value assigned to certain cultural production. Such as poetry or painting etc. are forms of communication or expression . But not all communication is Art, not all cultural production is Art, not all expression in form is Art. Art is not beyond linguistic concept, it is an linguistic concept. 'Art' is a signifier a sign to hierarchical cultural production, established via social relations. (which is why Art is sometimes claimed to be undefinable because its definition is negotiated depending on what is considered high culture and beyond mere normative culture such as crafts)

 

[Andiferous]

Well, I guess I disagree with that, but we've little to prove our opinions.

I see art as a method of reaching a different understanding than ordinary language symbolism. I theorise that as it has been observed humans learn in different ways, there is reason to believe that humans also understand in different ways not entirely represented by language.

 

[PAB]

what Art doesn't use ordinary language symbols? and what constitutes an ordinary language symbol?

i would argue that my opinion , that what i expressed, is not mere fancy. It is rooted from an understanding of Art history and from dealing with the philosophies of art. Check my previous post for references to some important texts: these texts, set out a line of an understanding of Art,

the two crucial bases for an understanding of art is : History and Economics (social relations of labour and product), Larry shiner has done an excellent job in my opinion in regards to Art history. What needs further investigation is the economic side, which is why i am currently working on Marx in relation to an understanding of Capitalism which ties in with the relation of the transition of cultural ideology in relation to general economic shifts from feudalism to capitalism which feeds back into Art history.

 

[Andiferous]

I agree the formal definitions and categories of art are heavily influenced by class, economics and politics; in the past it was entwined with religion; and not all art represents the same sort of principle. I may just be ignorant of artistic philosophy, though I have studied a very little and am interested. But I'm not speaking of formal political definitions, because elitism rather ticks me off.

It's hard to argue the topic because art is subjective, and so is theory on it.

I find that the art that truly 'speaks' to a person, while varying from individual to individual, does seem to communicate something that isn't easily expressed in language. I probably sound all ditzy saying so, but I find some art is an experience and translation or transposition into language never seems entirely accurate.

Some people learn with symbol, some people are visual learners. Everyone thinks differently. The human brain is a marvel. Artists convey pictures, stories or songs that have little messages that varies among people, and perspective is wildly mutable. Perhaps as were it mimicking real life in some way.

That said, this is just my theory of it.

 

[PAB]

if Art was not elitist ...it wouldn't be Art. Art is axiomatically elitist. (im against Art in a sense)

''...to say, as has been said in the history of aesthetics, that one's own societies art is only the art of the upper classes, and that real art is something else, is to misunderstand the concept. Art is nothing over and above what has been socially established as art....the supposition, at the beginning of this chapter that our society might have got the Art list wrong assumes, wrongly, that there is something to get right or wrong''
Rodger Taylor.
Art, an enemy of the people

Every definition of art, its very use as a term and concept is an elitist act.

 

[Andiferous]

if Art was not elitist ...it wouldn't be Art. Art is axiomatically elitist. (im against Art in a sense)

''...to say, as has been said in the history of aesthetics, that one's own societies art is only the art of the upper classes, and that real art is something else, is to misunderstand the concept. Art is nothing over and above what has been socially established as art....the supposition, at the beginning of this chapter that our society might have got the Art list wrong assumes, wrongly, that there is something to get right or wrong''
Rodger Taylor.
Art, an enemy of the people

Every definition of art, its very use as a term and concept is an elitist act.

Except that I've just introduced a concept for art that is based on its personal and subjective nature, and therein I see its value. And this is contrary to your criticism.

The old cliche that art reflects life isn't that far off.

 

[Unwardil]

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Always difficult to actually put words to something that, by definition deals with super lingual concepts.

Are you saying Art is by definition something beyond linguistic concepts ??....please expand.

Yes I am saying that and I'd be glad to expand, or to attempt it anyway.

Two people can look at some blotches of paint on a canvas. Both agree that they are looking at art. They both see the image of a pastoral landscape, but what they perceive in addition to this can be anything from standing on a hill side made of paint, looking at another world to... Who knows, the point is, art makes you feel something other than the bleedingly obvious. If it doesn't make you feel this, it's not art, not to you anyway.

 

[PAB]

Two people can look at some blotches of paint on a canvas. Both agree that they are looking at art. They both see the image of a pastoral landscape, but what they perceive in addition to this can be anything from standing on a hill side made of paint, looking at another world to... Who knows, the point is, art makes you feel something other than the bleedingly obvious. If it doesn't make you feel this, it's not art, not to you anyway.

The point is it doesn't matter if its art or not art.For example a film that moves me and takes me into the story is a great film , i have many personal favourites which i champion (some which are called 'art-films' some commercial hollywood)....but trying to say because it had this effect it is something more than just a film, that it is Art is not needed and is ideological-in the old sense of false imaginary relation to the world. It is not 'art' that gives those feelings, but that you get those feelings and call it art because it did so....thus now enters the problems of elitism, class dominance, ideological state apparatus and so on.

 

[Andiferous]

The point is it doesn't matter if its art or not art.For example a film that moves me and takes me into the story is a great film , i have many personal favourites which i champion (some which are called 'art-films' some commercial hollywood)....but trying to say because it had this effect it is something more than just a film, that it is Art is not needed and is ideological-in the old sense of false imaginary relation to the world. It is not 'art' that gives those feelings, but that you get those feelings and call it art because it did so....thus now enters the problems of elitism, class dominance, ideological state apparatus and so on.

So essentially you take issue with the association or definition or term "art," and not the existence of art under a different label?

Just how much power do you give terms? Do you have absolute faith in all your nouns and in the mechanism of language? Is there really a possibility that there is a single word in any language that cannot be misinterpreted or doesn't have inherent flaws?

Or are these dangerous images and messages transmitted through art propaganda not also available in every day existence?

Or is the fiction and escapism a dangerous kind of drug used to control the masses?

This seems to come down to syntax, and at this point we might as well re-evaluate the effectiveness of communication entirely. When it's clear that there is no way to salvage it, though, we'll have to rebuild again, or trash all words as potential vehicles for corruption by means of human interaction. And monitor ideas to carefully weed out imagination. And not let people see dangerous things. See how this sounds?

Or just advocate for critical thinking and educate in cynicism.

 

[PAB]

So essentially you take issue with the association or definition or term "art," and not the existence of art under a different label?

Just how much power do you give terms? Do you have absolute faith in all your nouns and in the mechanism of language? Is there really a possibility that there is a single word in any language that cannot be misinterpreted or doesn't have inherent flaws?

Or are these dangerous images and messages transmitted through art propaganda not also available in every day existence?

Or is the fiction and escapism a dangerous kind of drug used to control the masses?

This seems to come down to syntax, and at this point we might as well re-evaluate the effectiveness of communication entirely. When it's clear that there is no way to salvage it, though, we'll have to rebuild again, or trash all words as potential vehicles for corruption by means of human interaction. And monitor ideas to carefully weed out imagination. And not let people see dangerous things. See how this sounds?

Or just advocate for critical thinking and educate in cynicism.

-How can Art exist under a different label exactly? (Art that is Art but not called Art ... :? )
- it isn't simply just a label applied to objects or activities. But, again, is ideological, therefore something can be created with the intention of being Art and is thus created in relation to the beliefs of what Art should be.
-I have no problem with 'dangerous images and messages' from something such as film or music etc. , that's not the issue, and yes they certainly would be available in everyday existence.(if this is what your asking)
-Fiction and escapism is great, and i also love a mushroom or too personally, but we are talking about Art and Art must be understood separated from its commodity form, Art is not material nor purely subjective its an ideology, (so Art cannot be understood so long as Art is seen in a painting or film etc because this perspective has not dissected the illusion, your still in the ideology). and all ideology has a material basis -here being social relations.
- Its not merely a linguistic issue..the meaning of words change over time, but this is also reflective of the changing of the idea it represents, or at least is the case with Art, with the emergence 'invention' of Fine Art. Of which the concept needs to be understood and critically evaluated via reason.....it doesn't hold up , it falls, hence 20th century art and the developments in modernism , every wall was pushed and it fell, in which now ' anything is potentially art but not everything' .

Its really an issue of reason when it comes to Art and its distinction from craft and normative forms of cultural activity. My experience in an Arts educative institution is that reason is ignored , neglected and at times out -rightly fought against. The reason for this is that Art can actually be understood however it contradicts with the beliefs held central to it and those which constitute it. I would claim that Art is almost on Par with religion for silliness and irrationalism , in fact alot of similarities can be drawn between religion and Art as systems of belief.
-

 

[Andiferous]

You really do sound a bit resentful of art, and I'm not sure how you got through the program.

Fortunately there's no dangerous extortion binding us to a single interpretation of art that conflicts with our own. There's no gun to our heads in the gallery. There really is no need to give other peoples' opinion undue authority and importance when doing so just denies an opportunity to add our own ideas. Art for art's sake anyway, eh? I give and take and like and ignore. Art is all subjective though, so a person ought to really accept that some people have weird ideas and measures of art, and there are snobs out there that you've really got to learn to deal with.

If we're going into advertising and commercial art and the world of marketing overwhelms us, well that's completely different. If we're measuring value of art by demand or market value, I think we've really failed to get the point, no matter how nice it would be that art were free and pure and unbound by societal pressures. Ideally all artists would have patronage of some sense that would free them from societal motives. But whatever, artists are clever and can get around it if they care. If we're measuring by other peoples' standards, we're buying into that system we like to complain about and are no better than hypocrites. Yes, I am somewhat of an artist myself, and obviously disagree with you.

I don't understand how a person can value art and imply a need of some kind of censorship of art at the same time. Art is the perfect medium for pushing society's limits like little else can do. Art can potentially lead beyond its' time. So instead of complaining about potential political abuse, use it to make a political statement, silly!

 

[PAB]

You really do sound a bit resentful of art, and I'm not sure how you got through the program.

Fortunately there's no dangerous extortion binding us to a single interpretation of art that conflicts with our own. There's no gun to our heads in the gallery. There really is no need to give other peoples' opinion undue authority and importance when doing so just denies an opportunity to add our own ideas. Art for art's sake anyway, eh? I give and take and like and ignore. Art is all subjective though, so a person ought to really accept that some people have weird ideas and measures of art, and there are snobs out there that you've really got to learn to deal with.

If we're going into advertising and commercial art and the world of marketing overwhelms us, well that's completely different. If we're measuring value of art by demand or market value, I think we've really failed to get the point, no matter how nice it would be that art were free and pure and unbound by societal pressures. Ideally all artists would have patronage of some sense that would free them from societal motives. But whatever, artists are clever and can get around it if they care. If we're measuring by other peoples' standards, we're buying into that system we like to complain about and are no better than hypocrites. Yes, I am somewhat of an artist myself, and obviously disagree with you.

I don't understand how a person can value art and imply a need of some kind of censorship of art at the same time. Art is the perfect medium for pushing society's limits like little else can do. Art can potentially lead beyond its' time. So instead of complaining about potential political abuse, use it to make a political statement, silly!

im not resentful of Art necessarily , i just understand it a bit more than most. Arrogance! :lol:

Well i 'was' certainly an Artist which is how i came to be in the program, enrolled in the university. However by shifting to understanding rather than just making work i stopped making 'Art' . Because Art can Defiantly not understand itself. You cant do Art to understand Art. (And it isn't because i wasn't any good , top grades, top college of art etc )

The best way to explore this further , because your an artist, is to examine what you do as an artist and then we can expose ideology and interpellation. That way i can show you how deep the rabbit hole really goes

 

[Andiferous]

Well i 'was' certainly an Artist which is how i came to be in the program, enrolled in the university. However by shifting to understanding rather than just making work i stopped making 'Art' . Because Art can Defiantly not understand itself. You cant do Art to understand Art. (And it isn't because i wasn't any good , top grades, top college of art etc )

The best way to explore this further , because your an artist, is to examine what you do as an artist and then we can expose ideology and interpellation. That way i can show you how deep the rabbit hole really goes

I'm a bit private about that stuff right now and not ready to publish or go public right now, but thank you. I suppose I may have to listen and imagine the rabbit hole with some guidance and maybe some Jefferson Airplane.

That said, it is worth asking you what your definition of art encompasses, and if it is limited to picture type things. Is there any room for literature and music and dance and performance, (and even crafts as originally pointed out!)? How do these affect your perspective? I'm curious.

 

[PAB]

I'm a bit private about that stuff right now and not ready to publish or go public right now, but thank you. I suppose I may have to listen and imagine the rabbit hole with some guidance and maybe some Jefferson Airplane.

That said, it is worth asking you what your definition of art encompasses, and if it is limited to picture type things. Is there any room for literature and music and dance and performance, (and even crafts as originally pointed out!)? How do these affect your perspective? I'm curious.

yeah, i understand.

Well, im not in the business of defining Art. That is the fundamental failure of most Art theory and philosophies of Art. There's a difference between understanding Art and defining Art. A definition of Art would and can only be relative to imposing on some form of culture activities/ creative acts a specific type of social class value i.e. that it is 'Art'. So in this sense a definition of Art is done only by believing in the values and beliefs (e.g. forms of romantic aesthetics) of Art, what could be understood however is why people define certain things as Art and some things as not Art.(i would refer here to the work of Bourdieu and his sociological research in his book Distinctions) So, strangely, a definition of what constitutes 'Art' is contrary to a knowledge of Art, this is in part because 'Art' is not 'in' the object but exists immaterial in social relations.

I don't class anything as Art . But i still retain value preferences (Bourdieu- 'no judgement of taste is innocent-we are all snobs), i like abstract expressionism to landscape paintings, Rock to Pop music, Sci-fi to horror and so on. I don't limit any form of cultural activity, but the concept of Art and its materialisation via practice and institutions does. via formalising (althusser and the ideological state apparatus is relevant here) specific social-class tastes as high/civilised and authentic culture, and this is the reality of Art as it exists .