If the thing you're making has any meaning past being the thing, then it's art.

That's why I consider my tapecraft a craft, rather than art; they have no meaning or intent.

I think if you can use it for something (quilt, bowl, sweater, chair) it's a craft. If not, it's art. :2cents:

Said like a true artiste.

I logged in to say that "craft" is not an insult. Some of our most beloved works are craft (even as defined by the individual who has produced them). Happy Monkey is happy to define his work as a craft.

Personally, I derive boundless pleasure from the accomplishments of advancing the craft of my drumming, i.e. techniques perfected in order to achieve a desired, reproducable goal. As a craftsman I can make myslef like a machine--a machine that produces something useful.

One of the applications of craftmanship is that it can be utilized in the production of art.

So what is art? Is it that which evokes an emotional response? That is one of the things that art can do. It can also evoke (or provoke) other kinds of reactions. Art "pushes buttons" inside the human mind, because the artist, either intentionally or unwittingly, has laid bare a principle which is native and universal to the human psyche.

A debate often arises regarding the validity of "modern" art. If it does not have an obvious emotional element--how can it be art? I would argue that it is perhaps an even greater work of art if the artist is able to distill something universally human without resorting to cheap emotional stimulus.

So what are they dealing with? Perception. Pushing the evolutionary buttons of raw perception, without the safety net of a "bowl of fruit" to guide the viewer's expectations. I would argue that modern art is perhaps a more pure art--because of the lack of an easy "subject" on which to focus.

...


One of the ongoing debates in my household centers on the subject of Jackson Pollock. Please take a moment to absorb these facts:

• Scientists have studies various amounts of scattered visual patterns to determine which are most pleasing to the human eye (determined by the preferences of test subjects).
  
• The highest-rated visual patterns resemble something like looking up at a canopy of trees overhead.
  
• These patterns can be classified according to a mathematical description of their properties.
  
• Computer programs can evaluate visual images in order to determine how they rate on this scale of human preference.
  
• Over the course of Jackson Pollock's career, his works steadily progressed further towards this mathematical ideal, finally settling and remaining very near the "perfect" score.
  
• In fact, said computer programs can determine a counterfeit Jackson Pollock painting, or evaluate a genuine Pollock to accurately predict at which point in his career it was produced.

Tell me this: how can a drunkard madman, flinging paint at a canvas, arrive at a point where he can reliably produce images which are later determined to be mathematically perfect examples of what the human sensory mechanism perceives as ideal??? THIS IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. I leave you with a question: is this art... or craftmanship?

It's crap.

Which is what Pooka says. But I have to question whether true "crap" exhibits the qualities stated above, i.e. working towards and achieving a mathematically pure form of visual perfection which is specifically tuned towards a hard-wired human preference for specific types of visual patterns. I'd have to say that is pure ƒucking genius. Take away the element of "this is a picture of a sailboat" and it could be argued that this is exactly what every artist strives to do. That is, to create visually pleasing images.

The question what is art is one of the stupidest things in the world and people devote years of their lives to mental masturbation on the subject. It is a total time waster.

It's the equivalent of asking something like "How far is far?"

More than near, and less than further.:p:

I disagree.

Perhaps the question is completely subjective, and therefore contemplating this topic amounts to an exercise in self-examination.

The other end of the room.

No, it isn't completely subjective. If you want to believe what art historians, art theorists, et al have to say. The discussion requires an extraordinary knowledge of art and the history of art and theories of art. Regular folks talking about "what is art" are not really equipped to make that judgement.

One of the tests of the 1st amendment relating to obscenity is if the work has artistic merit. The judgement of something's artistic merit is not left up to the average reasonable person. Artistic merit is determined by experts in the field.

Maybe it isn't like asking how far is far, it's more like two people who have never been to China arguing about what the weather is like in a certain village at this time of year.

You could have a great, long lasting argument entirely bolstered by uninformed opinion, but it would still be a waste of time.

FTR, I am not interested in art history, but I know a number of PhDs and they'd mostly just nod and smile at you if you started in on "what is art?"

Frankly, I find Art History to be a big bore. Most art today is ideas about ideas about art. It leaves me cold and it is a member's only club. Only the people who get the references get the art.

It really isn't for you, it's about creating an elite club of the illuminati. A super version of the "No soap radio" joke.

So in order to be art, it has to be pushing the boundaries and/or making uncomfortable, the Illuminati. The rest of us are irrelevant.

Agreed. I have found it is impossible not to sound like an elitist douchebag when ever making a statement like "one type of music is better than another" or "this is art when this isn't". I can understand how people like their music or artistic tastes over other people but a lot of people try to convince themselves that they are better, more mature, etc than other people better of something that is completely subjective. Eh, it annoys me.

To me its like saying "the color green is a lot better than the color red". What?

Please quit the internet. This place isn't for you. The rest of us will be proceeding into the next evolutionary phase of human culture.

What's so great about the barrier reef?
What's so fine about art?

--Old 97s