Is Craft Art?
Tariq Kadri
Hi,
It seems that there are too many adverts in this newsgroup! Here is a
point for discussion:
"Is Craft Art?" Some points that I believe contribute towards the
discussion...
1. Art is concerned with imagination whereas craft is concerned with
technical skills.
2. If somebody thinks something is artistic, is it Art?
3. Is a certain technical ability needed to create Art?
4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
5. If a craftsman makes something beautiful - is it Art? Can we classify
Art into "good" and "bad" categories?
Any thoughts on this subject would be much appreciated... If possible
email replies would be preferable to "t...@bigfoot.com".
Andrew Werby
> Hi,
>
> It seems that there are too many adverts in this newsgroup!
[Yes, it would be nice if those trying to buy, or sell, or enquire into
the value of art-related items would post to alt.art.marketplace instead
of (not in addition to) posting here.]
Here is a
> point for discussion:
>
> "Is Craft Art?"
[I think a distinction can be made. At the one extreme is the "pure" art object
that is a direct and inwardly directed product of an artist's inner vision,
untainted by technical considerations or hopes of reward. This was the sort of
thing the Abstract Expressionists were striving for- an art without craft;
feelings expressed without thought to get in the way.
On the other hand, there is the pure craft object, that is an item rationally
designed to fulfill a certain function most efficiently within the constraints
of available technical means, which is an outer-directed and impersonal
activity. Exemplified most perfectly by computer-designed and robotically
manufactured electronic circuitry, the emotions and esthetic leanings of the
people creating it have virtually no influence on its form.
This distinction is not mutually exclusive, at least in most cases. A craft
object will usually have a certain artistic content, and an art object will
likewise be invested with some amount of craft. Most items designed or
created by people still have a certain residue of esthetic content, giving
the reductivists something to root out in their quest for an ever-bleaker
future environment. The search for purity, especially in art, has a
tendency to become boring- although that is just my personal opinion.]
Some points that I believe contribute towards the
> discussion...
>
> 1. Art is concerned with imagination whereas craft is concerned with
> technical skills.
[Dreaming up new techniques and figuring out how to apply them takes a
certain amount of imagination. Perfecting ones technical skills leaves one
freer to
express whatever it is one feels inside, without worrying about the means of
expression.]
> 2. If somebody thinks something is artistic, is it Art?
[No. If one looks at a printed circuit for the first time, for instance, one can
easily confuse it with art. Beauty can be found in Nature, and other things
that clearly are not art, so you can't say that because something is beautiful
it must be art. (There are even those who say that if it's beautiful it
can't be art, but I don't agree.)]
> 3. Is a certain technical ability needed to create Art?
[No. But if one is trying to create interesting or beautiful art, technical
ability really helps.]
> 4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
[Fine art is not good for anything but decoration- or uglification, as the
case may be. Useful art may perform a function in addition to this, such as
being a table, or a vase, or conveying a political message. I don't think that
the addition of function necessarily takes anything away from the artistry
involved in a piece; it is more like a juggler adding another ball to the
ones already in the air- it can make the act more thrilling, or make the whole
thing come crashing down.]
> 5. If a craftsman makes something beautiful - is it Art?
[It can be, but craft objects can be beautiful as craft objects. If, for
example, a potter makes pots exactly the way his father and grandfather before
him have made pots, they can be beautiful but have little artistic content,
which requires a measure of individual esthetic input, it seems to me.
I was discussing this question recently in the context of the movies, arguably
the pre-eminent artform of our times. Clearly, the director of a film has the
opportunity to express himself, and is thus an artist of sorts. But what about
the special-effects crews? Are they artists, or mere craftspeople? I think the
answer lies in the degree of expressive freedom they are given in the course of
doing their jobs. To the degree that they are able to make esthetic decisions,
however minute, they are artists. If they only get to use their heads and
hands, not their hearts, then they are craftspersons. (Anatomists and
literalists can substitute "left brains" for "heads" and "right brains"
for "hearts".)
But, as I said earlier, the proper way to think of this issue is not as a
binary decision- either one is an artist or a craftsperson, period- but as
a continuum; that is at any given moment in the course of creating something
one may be functioning as an artist and a craftsperson simultaneously but to
varying extents.]
Can we classify
> Art into "good" and "bad" categories?
[I think we all do. Just because something includes a high degree of individual
expression does not mean it will strike any particular person as beautiful,
meaningful, or even interesting. But it is hard - maybe impossible- to set up
categorical filters that will sort it out in a way that everybody is going to
accept, especially in the absence of a shared system of esthetic valuation. In
fact, incredible as it may seem, there will probably be those out there who
would even disagree with the eminently reasonable distinctions I've just
made...]
>
> Any thoughts on this subject would be much appreciated... If possible
> email replies would be preferable to "t...@bigfoot.com".
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
zi...@interport.net
Well, first of all, art is defined differently in different counbtries
of the world. InJapan painters in western style media ar artists but
so are potters, and woodcut artists-who have much more status thanb
print makers have in the West. Even from the East coast to the West
coast of the USA, there is a big change . On the West coast Ceramics
is takenmuch more seriously as is weaving and jewelry making.
So, to start with there are regional differences in opinion as to what
constitutes serious art activity.
I would throw out a different distinction for discussion. Most of what
we on the East coast consider crafts are meant to be things which
forma part of an environment we live in. They di nit make a whole
world which holds up its sneusal reality in contradistinction to the
world we live in, of which the onjects of use and decor form a part.
I do not believe that the technique versus imagination would hold up
infront of objects. What are the cylinder seals of the Babylonians and
other ancient peoples, art or craft. What are the Greek pots used to
ship honey and wine out of greece, tin cans or art. But how many of
these make whole worlds? Do some,most all, none?
Gabriel
Tariq Kadri <t...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>It seems that there are too many adverts in this newsgroup! Here is a
>point for discussion:
>"Is Craft Art?" Some points that I believe contribute towards the
>discussion...
>1. Art is concerned with imagination whereas craft is concerned with
>technical skills.
>2. If somebody thinks something is artistic, is it Art?
>3. Is a certain technical ability needed to create Art?
>4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
>5. If a craftsman makes something beautiful - is it Art? Can we classify
>Art into "good" and "bad" categories?
>Any thoughts on this subject would be much appreciated... If possible
Petra Rawlence
In article <drewid-1803...@coatppp29.lanminds.com>, Andrew
Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>> 4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
>
>[Fine art is not good for anything but decoration- or uglification, as the
>case may be.
I go along with almost everything Andrew Werby so clearly argues.
One exception, though, is the statement quoted above. The
quality of his other clarifications leads me to assume (and
hope!) that the sentence I query was a mere slip of tongue :)
May I please ask these follow-up questions:
1. When, in art-historical terms, did Art separate from Craft?
2. Why?
3. Must we perhaps accept that the dividing line between the two
is a shifting one, dependent on the era of creation, ie. that
there exist no absolutes in this context?
I suggest that any observations/information be posted to the
group, because the question "Is Craft Art?" will have arisen in
most of us at one time or another.
Petra
--
Petra Rawlence
Jeffery Measamer
Tariq Kadri wrote:
> 1. Art is concerned with imagination whereas craft is concerned with
> technical skills.
> 2. If somebody thinks something is artistic, is it Art?
> 3. Is a certain technical ability needed to create Art?
> 4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
> 5. If a craftsman makes something beautiful - is it Art? Can we classify Art into "good" and "bad" categories?
>
I'll be replying as a collector since I have absolutely no skill for
actually making art.
1.Art is concerned with imagination, MAYBE, and craft is certainly
concerned with skill. However I don't believe you can have art without
skill.
2. No it's not, some people condier 1920' packing labels "art", they are
just packing labels. Maybe pretty but just packing lables.
3. Technical skill is an absolute requirement in my opinion, of course I
dismiss a lot of modern works as unskilled trash. I figure if my dog or
I can make something that looks similar it's trash, not art. If you look
at the works of JMW Turner from his later period you may think him an
impressionist, however he was earlier than the impressionists and
reached the level he did because of his faultless technique developed in
the l. 18th/e. 19th century.
Just because someones wants to be an artist doesn't make it so.
4. I have to agree with one of the previous posts, if it's usefull it's
not fine art. I collect 18th C. British pottery also, it's a joy to
behold but it's not art, it's well crafted and wonderfully decorated.
5. Where is Mani Deli when you need him? Of course there is good and bad
art. It's just that it's subject to each individuals taste, I prefer
19th and 20th C. etchings etc., some people hate them and consider them
topographical rubbish. However most of these people are wannabe artists
with no skill.
Well, that should get all of the real artists stirred up.
PS I'm also a dealer, I try to only put ads in once every 2-3 weeks, no
come-ons in the subject just straightforward so people can skip over
them. We aren't really bad people, I also try to answer questions that
people have related to my areas of knowledge and don't mind stirring the
pot with my own opinions.
Jeff Measamer
zi...@interport.net
Dear Petra,
If as Andrew Werby said Fine art is not good for anything, who needs
it?'
If the crafts are good for something theyhave ital over the fine arts.
But I am afraid I do not believe that "fine art" is good for nothing.
Nor do I think that the history of the separation of Fine Art from
other arts supports that. What it supports is that the function of
fine art in our society is subtle and difficult to define or even to
be aware of experiencing. Not that it doesn;t have a function.
No function-that way lies the dead hand of formalism.
Doesn't art do something to you? Well if it does what? And what does
it do to others? And what value does that experience have?
Even Mondrian believed in the social function of art-especially
Mondrian! He wanted to change our minds and hearts, and through them
the world-through his art.
Why is this sort of thought unfashionable now?
What does that imply about the p[oeple to whom it is unfashionable and
evenmore what does it imply to those to whom it is anathema?
Gabriel
Petra Rawlence <petrar...@little-croham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <drewid-1803...@coatppp29.lanminds.com>, Andrew
>Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>>> 4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
>>
>>[Fine art is not good for anything but decoration- or uglification, as the
>>case may be.
Petra Rawlence
In article <6et2io$5ei$1...@broadway.interport.net>, zi...@interport.net
writes
>
>Dear Petra,
>If as Andrew Werby said Fine art is not good for anything, who needs
>it?'
Dear Gabriel,
I am sure, that Andrew Werby did not quite mean what he said (as I
already indicated in my earlier message)
>
>If the crafts are good for something theyhave ital over the fine arts.
>
I can't quite work out the word "ital". A misspelling perhaps?
>But I am afraid I do not believe that "fine art" is good for nothing.
Neither do I or anyone else involved with Fine Art!
>
>Nor do I think that the history of the separation of Fine Art from
>other arts supports that. What it supports is that the function of
>fine art in our society is subtle and difficult to define or even to
>be aware of experiencing. Not that it doesn;t have a function.
>
>No function-that way lies the dead hand of formalism.
The question of the function of art, ie its effect on the spectator,
was central to the degree course I took in Public Art and Design. In
the public domain the issue is even more sensitive than in the
traditional settings of museums, galleries or the privacy of the home.
>
>Doesn't art do something to you? Well if it does what? And what does
>it do to others? And what value does that experience have?
I am glad you ask the question in a personal form. I have come to the
(not very astonishing!) conclusion that the visual arts, like music,
affect each of us on a very *individual* level. Not only may a work of
art have different meanings to you and me, but it may affect me quite
differently now than it did in my youth. Life experience does colour
our perception, I think.
The same is therefore true of the value of experienced art. It should
be highest in those who are sensitive to artistic expressions. Whether
or not, and to what degree, it affects those who are not used to a
confrontation with Fine Art, we cannot know. Perhaps we can only live
in hope.
>
>Even Mondrian believed in the social function of art-especially
>Mondrian! He wanted to change our minds and hearts, and through them
>the world-through his art.
>
>Why is this sort of thought unfashionable now?
>
>What does that imply about the p[oeple to whom it is unfashionable and
>evenmore what does it imply to those to whom it is anathema?
The idea of a social function of art may be, as you say, unfashionable
at present, but it is far from dead. I point again to the many examples
of Public Art (visual, audio or performance art) which, by their mere
existence, pre-suppose a belief in a social function of art.
I don't think it will ever be possible to *prove* the positive effect,
if any, of art on the beholder beyond his/her individual expressions of
joy or recognition or disturbance etc.
Shall we perhaps now turn the discussion back to the original question
"Is Craft Art?" ? I am really interested to get more opinions!
Petra
mark webber
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Petra Rawlence wrote:
(snip bulk of post)
>
> Shall we perhaps now turn the discussion back to the original question
> "Is Craft Art?" ? I am really interested to get more opinions!
>
> Petra
Petra,
I missed the beginning of this thread (I was in Paris for a really
delightful week), but since you are asking, here are my thoughts.
As in other similar postings to this group, one of the difficulties here
is the word "art". I think many people use the word to mean both "art in
general" and "Great Art", or "Masterpieces". A couple of months back there
was a discussion here about art therapy, with a similar question, and the
pivotal question is How are you defining art?
If someone wants to call a Greek vase craft, that's fine, but it should be
acknowleged, I think, that the painting on some Greek vases seems to rise
above the purely functional.
Not all furniture is made admirably, and personally, I've never seen a
chair as impressive as a Caravaggio's "Death of the Virgin", but some
furniture is made so well, and with such sensitive design, and has such
excellent form, that one may well feel it is a work of art. Does it equal
"The Death of the Virgin"?, and is this your question?
Also, are you asking about the intention of the craftsman? Is the
craftsman entitled to say he or she has made a work of art? Or can it be
viewed by someone else this way?
Taking into consideration notions of personal taste, quality, form and
function, etc., my tendancy would be to say that there is, sometimes, some
art to some craft, just as there is some craft to some art.
But perhaps before we can answer your question better, could you specify
what you mean by "art": Anything that is made by someone who calls
themselves an artist, including flea market kitsch and the ready-mades of
Duchamp, or the other extreme, a vague, disputable notion called "Great
Art". Or is there a distinction in your mind? Please don't mistake my
remarks as snotty or demeaning, I think this is a complex question.
Mark
Petra Rawlence
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980320093527.543234561C-
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>
>
>
>Petra,
>
>I missed the beginning of this thread
Hello, Mark,
The original question "Is Craft Art?" was asked by Tariq Kadri. A
follow-up by Andrew Werby gave a very comprehensive and clear reply.
Additional comments were made by Gabriel and myself.
>As in other similar postings to this group, one of the difficulties here
>is the word "art". I think many people use the word to mean both "art in
>general" and "Great Art", or "Masterpieces".
(snip)
>pivotal question is How are you defining art?
It would be wrong of me to attempt a definition, where even
learned academicians and great thinkers never quite succeeded.
All I can give you is my very personal opinion, which in no way claims
to be a clear cut definition:
"Art in general" is any involvement with the transformation and
sublimation of perceptions, ideas, memories, fears etc. into marks on
canvas, into sculpture, written and spoken words, and into music.
"Great Art" are those results of the above involvement which
have the power to touch by disturbing or elevating me.
A "Masterpiece" is the best work of an artist *in comparison to his/
her own other work*, rather than the commonly used definition of high
quality in comparison to other artists' work.
>
>If someone wants to call a Greek vase craft, that's fine, but it should be
>acknowleged, I think, that the painting on some Greek vases seems to rise
>above the purely functional.
I quite agree.
(snip)
>
> but some
>furniture is made so well, and with such sensitive design, and has such
>excellent form, that one may well feel it is a work of art. Does it equal
>"The Death of the Virgin"?, and is this your question?
My interest in the question "Is Craft Art?" stems from my own
involvement with Fine Art (painting, sculpture) as well as Craft
(mosaic, woodcarving). My feeling is that Craft is generally regarded
as an inferior to Fine Art, and I wonder why that should be so. I am
also trying to find out since when this division exists. Was there not
a time when painters, sculptors, musicians and writers were counted
together with carpenters, potters and house builders as craft people?
>
>Also, are you asking about the intention of the craftsman? Is the
>craftsman entitled to say he or she has made a work of art? Or can it be
>viewed by someone else this way?
If it is the intention of the craftsman to express or celebrate an
abstract idea or a narrative above and beyond illustration, and if he
succeeds in this, he may well claim to have created a work of art.
>
>Taking into consideration notions of personal taste, quality, form and
>function, etc., my tendancy would be to say that there is, sometimes, some
>art to some craft, just as there is some craft to some art.
Just so.
>
>But perhaps before we can answer your question better, could you specify
>what you mean by "art":
(snip)
I hope, I have given above at least an indication of how I view this, as
you rightly say, complex question.
Petra
--
Petra Rawlence
Andrew Werby
In article <tdqYUCAx...@little-croham.demon.co.uk>, Petra Rawlence
<petrar...@little-croham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <drewid-1803...@coatppp29.lanminds.com>, Andrew
> Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes
> >> 4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
> >
> >[Fine art is not good for anything but decoration- or uglification, as the
> >case may be.
>
>
> I go along with almost everything Andrew Werby so clearly argues.
> One exception, though, is the statement quoted above. The
> quality of his other clarifications leads me to assume (and
> hope!) that the sentence I query was a mere slip of tongue :)
[Thanks for the first part above, and as for the second- what's your problem
with it? I was speaking in a narrow sense, of course, not of art's broad
usefulness in helping society reflect on itself, its enriching effect on
viewers, its therapeutic value to artists, or its economic impact on cities,
etc. I just meant that it isn't going to pour out your tea or hold your
'brolley. That would make it "applied " art as opposed to "fine". And you've
seen fine art that's ugly, haven't you? If not, you've surely led a sheltered
life. Either that, or your definition of art excludes the ugly, which is
acceptable I guess but a bit restrictive.]
>
> May I please ask these follow-up questions:
>
> 1. When, in art-historical terms, did Art separate from Craft?
> 2. Why?
> 3. Must we perhaps accept that the dividing line between the two
> is a shifting one, dependent on the era of creation, ie. that
> there exist no absolutes in this context?
[Absolutely. I'm not sure about the "era of creation" part, though. There has
been art- and craft- in every era I can think of.
The idea of separating the two has occurred to various people at various times.
Early on, certain art objects took on a sacerdotal function, which elevated
them, and their makers, above the common herd of craftspeople- the example of
Phidias and his chryselephantine statues of the Gods comes to mind. When a
society identifies art with its highest ideals and recognizes the individual
contributions of its artists by placing them on the same level as its sports
heros and aristocracy, it is a sign that this society values art on a different
basis than it does craft.
The Chinese seem to have made the distinction early on, establishing a
tradition of poet/painters who seem to have been regarded in a different light
from their equally skillful potters, embroiderers, carvers, etc. If you read
Vasari's "Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects", you will see much
the same dynamic at work in Renaissance Italy. While most of these
creative types
were rooted in the guild system, which ensured a rigorous training in the craft-
related aspects of their chosen pursuits, some of them seem to have been singled
out by their contemporaries as having special qualities which set them apart.
In the modern era, the academization of art made it imperative to
institutionalize this distinction, to establish the graduates of art training
courses on a level above the residue of lower-class craftsmen and artisans who
managed to survive the industrial revolution. Thus it became the fashion to
deride the craft-related aspects of the artistic profession in favor of the
theoretical or spiritual novelties which it became the artist's function to
provide. In the context of a world-view that saw progress in terms of a triumph
of the mind and spirit over the body and Nature, this was perfectly consistent.
Thus a blizzard of different movements arose, each claiming to have advanced
further along the path toward higher art, more divorced from craft. I mentioned
the Abstract Expressionists in this context, but probably the ultimate
step was
taken by the Conceptualists of the 'sixties, who discarded the art object
altogether in favor of fatuous word-games and absurd activities, documented
in a purposefully unaesthetic manner.
Fortunately for those of us who didn't wish to see art dematerialize altogether,
the 'sixties also saw the birth of a countervailing movement which sought to
reunify art and craft, taking up such previously scorned media as
ceramics, fiber,
and glass, and infusing them with artistic sensibility. Since reductivism
led first
to the blank canvas and then to the blank space on the wall where the
canvas used to
be, it seems to have hit a dead end; and what vitality still exists in the
art world
is mostly to be found in the intersection between fine art and the crafts-
at least
in my humble opinion.]
mark webber
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Petra Rawlence wrote:
>
> Hello, Mark,
>
> The original question "Is Craft Art?" was asked by Tariq Kadri. A
> follow-up by Andrew Werby gave a very comprehensive and clear reply.
> Additional comments were made by Gabriel and myself.
>
> >As in other similar postings to this group, one of the difficulties here
> >is the word "art". I think many people use the word to mean both "art in
> >general" and "Great Art", or "Masterpieces".
> (snip)
> >pivotal question is How are you defining art?
>
> It would be wrong of me to attempt a definition, where even
> learned academicians and great thinkers never quite succeeded.
> All I can give you is my very personal opinion, which in no way claims
> to be a clear cut definition:
>
> "Art in general" is any involvement with the transformation and
> sublimation of perceptions, ideas, memories, fears etc. into marks on
> canvas, into sculpture, written and spoken words, and into music.
>
> "Great Art" are those results of the above involvement which
> have the power to touch by disturbing or elevating me.
>
> A "Masterpiece" is the best work of an artist *in comparison to his/
> her own other work*, rather than the commonly used definition of high
> quality in comparison to other artists' work.
You may say it is wrong of you to attempt a definition, but I think you've
done very well. Very considered, and I think, on target.
(further snip)
> > but some
> >furniture is made so well, and with such sensitive design, and has such
> >excellent form, that one may well feel it is a work of art. Does it equal
> >"The Death of the Virgin"?, and is this your question?
>
> My interest in the question "Is Craft Art?" stems from my own
> involvement with Fine Art (painting, sculpture) as well as Craft
> (mosaic, woodcarving). My feeling is that Craft is generally regarded
> as an inferior to Fine Art, and I wonder why that should be so. I am
> also trying to find out since when this division exists. Was there not
> a time when painters, sculptors, musicians and writers were counted
> together with carpenters, potters and house builders as craft people?
Well, this is helpful, because I wasn't sure what you meant by "craft",
and now that I see your question relates to woodcarving and mosaic, I have
to say that there are plenty of woodcarvings (such as Donatello's
Magdalen) and mosaics ( the ancients, etc.) that, at least for me, rank
with the other "great arts".
Although Santiyana makes a wonderful remark about "the Parthenon not in
marble" in his "On Material", can we really say that carving wood yeilds a
less esthetic experience than carving marble? certainly some personal
tastes may maintain this, but it would be tough to argue from a formal
point of view.
>
> If it is the intention of the craftsman to express or celebrate an
> abstract idea or a narrative above and beyond illustration, and if he
> succeeds in this, he may well claim to have created a work of art.
I agree completely, and I have a hard time seeing how someone could
disagree without being biased to particular media.
> >
> >Taking into consideration notions of personal taste, quality, form and
> >function, etc., my tendancy would be to say that there is, sometimes, some
> >art to some craft, just as there is some craft to some art.
>
> (snip)
>
> I hope, I have given above at least an indication of how I view this, as
> you rightly say, complex question.
>
> Petra
Absolutely, and its a pleasure to read your points. I'm only sorry there
is this "craft-not-art" issue being applied to woodcarving and mosaic work
being done with the intentions and issues as you describe them above.
Mark
DRS
Tariq Kadri wrote in message <350FF328...@bigfoot.com>...
>"Is Craft Art?" Some points that I believe contribute towards the
>discussion...
>
>1. Art is concerned with imagination whereas craft is concerned with
>technical skills.
This is a dangerous criterion; it connotes that craft lacks imagination,
although in this you are not alone: "Skill without imagination is
craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic
baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.", Tom Stopard.
I suggest that emotion may be a better distinction. After all, as David
Hockney said, "Art has to move you and design does not, unless it's a good
design for a bus."
>2. If somebody thinks something is artistic, is it Art?
Since deconstructionalism, yes.
>3. Is a certain technical ability needed to create Art?
Generally, of course, but not absolutely, otherwise there would be no naive
art or art brut.
>4. What is the difference between Fine Art and Useful Art?
It's more an historical class distinction than anything else. The so-called
Fine Arts are non-utilitarian, hence aristocratic, which explains their
elitist pretentions and prejudice against other art forms.
>5. If a craftsman makes something beautiful - is it Art?
Not necessarily. Beauty and art are not synonymous.
>Can we classify Art into "good" and "bad" categories?
I think that depends on whether you wish to include a moral element into
your definition. If you do then there certainly are good and bad
categories. On the other hand, if you believe that art is inherently
truthful then no such distinction can be made, and you have merely fallen
back upon your own tastes.
Petra Rawlence
In article <drewid-2003...@coatppp35.lanminds.com>, Andrew
Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>In article <tdqYUCAx...@little-croham.demon.co.uk>, Petra Rawlence
><petrar...@little-croham.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <drewid-1803...@coatppp29.lanminds.com>, Andrew
>> Werby <dre...@lanminds.com> writes
>> >
>> >[Fine art is not good for anything but decoration- or uglification, as the
>> >case may be.
>>
>>
Hi, Andrew,
Thanks for a very valuable contribution! I hope, lots of people
have read it.
Great web-site, too. Packed with useful information.
Greetings,
Petra
--
Petra Rawlence
Petra Rawlence
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980320182601.543241653A-
>> abstract idea or a narrative above and beyond illustration, and if he
>> succeeds in this, he may well claim to have created a work of art.
>
>I agree completely, and I have a hard time seeing how someone could
>disagree without being biased to particular media.
>
>>
>> you rightly say, complex question.
>>
>> Petra
>
>Absolutely, and its a pleasure to read your points. I'm only sorry there
>is this "craft-not-art" issue being applied to woodcarving and mosaic work
>being done with the intentions and issues as you describe them above.
>
>Mark
>
>
Hello Mark,
Many thanks for your reply. We seem to agree on the major points.
I hope, the entire thread was as interesting and valuable to you
as it was to me. It has succeeded in clarifying quite a number of
points for me.
I speak, above, in the past tense, because I shall be away shortly
for about a month. Others may, of course, continue the discussion,
and there may be further thoughtful contributions. I shall, on my
return, read all postings under this subject line avidly!
Bye,
Petra
--
Petra Rawlence