[pathogen]

I need a place to vent about a peeve I have, and as a Apple-loving geek it's hard to not feel like a hypcrite about it, because I am a hypocrite, but I wanna start a discussion about a topic hot in my head here because maybe a few of you can relate. Art gets confused with craft, and art suffers.

Having "great" gear, being a gear snob, and knowing how to use gear expertly (and by gear I mean everything from brushes, amplifiers, and software) along with following a doctrine of critical usage (knowing of a "right" way to do things and avoiding the "wrong" way) is becoming really normal.

There are tons of people who are expertly trained, have made a lot of money, have incredible equipment and taste... and they get taken seriously as "artists" by their peers. But what I mostly witness from these people isn't art, it's craft. It's the equivalent of building a model boat to look just like the photograph on the box, using all the airbrushes and lathes, it's expert craftsmanship. But there's no real art there.

Now this really divides people along what they consider their "art". For me, art has to be an experimentation that hinges on the possibility of failing. It's the process of doing something and leaving indices to the viewer about what I tried to accomplish so they can evaluate it, using a common language of historical/educated references, no matter how small or trivial.

Let me hold forth by stating some truths I believe to be self-evident:

1. I believe that by evaluating the process of making art and design, you can see that technique and proficiency definitely shape the final outcome. People in positions that evaluate art and design professionally are well-educated in the history and process, and great crafts people often confuse the critics, too.

2. Access to great technology has often helped in the creation of great art and design. Economic, political, and environmental factors greatly influence this. But great stuff has also come from rudimentary materials.

Good craft is essential for many jobs, and an artist has to be good at their craft, but the craft is not art unless the process is truly outstanding. Audiophiles, technophiles, philes of all ilk tend to be genius crafts people. But from my end, they often make poor artists with little critical ability to break new ground, and are often insanely devotional to art that they're doomed to be trying to imitate for all their lives.

/end rant.

[subego]

It sounds to me like you're describing a hack.

However, I would venture hackery is more tied to commercialization than blind devotion.

Not that I'm not bothered by it too.

[pathogen]

Hacks are pretty annoying in their own right, but I think they're mostly just vicitms of being a bit lazy and more concerned with getting the job done for financial reasons.

Conversely, there are some people who have elevated process (craft) into art and aren't aware of how artful they've become.

[DeathMan]

Process has nothing to do with art or craft. Only the resulting product is relevant.

Experimentation is experimentation. Not art. It was not long ago that most artists (the "Masters") were what you would consider craftspeople. The people who really stand out over time are indeed those who created something new, but I don't believe, that in general, it was ever their intention to experiment purely for the sake of novelty (as seems to be very much the case in much of today's contemporary art), but rather to express. It is the Artists expression and interpretation that sets him apart from a craftsman. I feel that Art without Craft is less than a child's fingerpainting.

[iMOTOR]

I think this all really depends on your definition of art. Ask a hundred artists what their definition of art is and you will probably have a hundred different answers. My definition of art is that art is nothing more and nothing less than alternative forms of communication.

Originally Posted by pathogen

Good craft is essential for many jobs, and an artist has to be good at their craft, but the craft is not art unless the process is truly outstanding. Audiophiles, technophiles, philes of all ilk tend to be genius crafts people. But from my end, they often make poor artists with little critical ability to break new ground, and are often insanely devotional to art that they're doomed to be trying to imitate for all their lives.

If your saying that the final product is more important than the process, then I agree wholeheartedly.

An interesting story I heard a long time ago, A writer meets with a photographer for a interview regarding his latest work. The writer says "I love your latest photography, you must have an excellent camera". The photographer agrees "yes, I have a fairly good camera...by the way, I have enjoyed your latest writings as well, you must have an excellent typewriter".

[pathogen]

The idea of art is one of the most relative things in society, isn't it? I think art is confusingly multi-faceted: it's aesthetic, psychological, logical, and full of polarities, but above all art, to me, is mostly defined by my methods of appreciation. My background, my experience, my projections. And generally, I see that society tends to critically evaluate something more when we see that an artisan has risked something... whether it's 400 hours, making a fool of themselves by exposing their personal ideas, or $30 million dollars. My personal feeling is that if that initial risk creates a climate for evaluation which more than a few people participate in with non-superficial interest, then usually you have art on your hands and not just craft. But at the same time, craft (the process of doing something) can be beautiful even if the final art fails.

Screw novelty. I'm sure a lot of us here can read something for signs that tell us what we think the artisan was thinking. And sometimes we see when there was some laziness or inspired thinking and problem solving. That's the risk I'm talking about witnessing.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by pathogen

And generally, I see that society tends to critically evaluate something more when we see that an artisan has risked something... My personal feeling is that if that initial risk creates a climate for evaluation which more than a few people participate in with non-superficial interest, then usually you have art on your hands and not just craft. But at the same time, craft (the process of doing something) can be beautiful even if the final art fails.

So you're saying that a work can not be art in the absence of critical evaluation?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by pathogen

The idea of art is one of the most relative things in society, isn't it? I think art is confusingly multi-faceted: it's aesthetic, psychological, logical, and full of polarities, but above all art, to me, is mostly defined by my methods of appreciation. My background, my experience, my projections. And generally, I see that society tends to critically evaluate something more when we see that an artisan has risked something... whether it's 400 hours, making a fool of themselves by exposing their personal ideas, or $30 million dollars. My personal feeling is that if that initial risk creates a climate for evaluation which more than a few people participate in with non-superficial interest, then usually you have art on your hands and not just craft. But at the same time, craft (the process of doing something) can be beautiful even if the final art fails.

Screw novelty. I'm sure a lot of us here can read something for signs that tell us what we think the artisan was thinking. And sometimes we see when there was some laziness or inspired thinking and problem solving. That's the risk I'm talking about witnessing.

You can define art or craft as whatever you want but unfortunately it doesn't make it so.

For instance "gear" is inherent to art., no gear no art (unless you're painting with feces), because using that gear expertly and producing results is an art. The artist doesn't make a certain thing art. I may be a shitty painter or writer but both those disciplines are still arts regardless of my skill.

I think the problem here is you're trying to put your own definition on art and you can come up with all kinds of weird **** that way. Best bet is to forget about defining it from the point of observation and pick up a dictionary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

For instance "gear" is inherent to art., no gear no art (unless you're painting with feces)

Or acting in a play perhaps.

Originally Posted by invisibleX

I think the problem here is you're trying to put your own definition on art and you can come up with all kinds of weird **** that way. Best bet is to forget about defining it from the point of observation and pick up a dictionary.

At the very least, the original point will be drowned in semantic bickering.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Best bet is to forget about defining it from the point of observation and pick up a dictionary.

define: art

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

I think the problem here is you're trying to put your own definition on art and you can come up with all kinds of weird **** that way. Best bet is to forget about defining it from the point of observation and pick up a dictionary.

GOOD IDEA!

art

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
Printing. Illustrative material.

Tomorrow: You say Tomato?!