[cobalt]

I have been told a few times now that some of my pieces are nice art work? some say a good piece of craft work

is this art or is it a craft

are the refering to the stickmaking side of the job or are there refering to the finish topper ?

i suppose many would call it craft and not art?

The arts fraternity tend to look down there nose at craft work giving it a second rate place to art

Like i pionted out to him you have to learn a craft to do art which could be anything from painting to all art forms his opinion was that it didnt evoke emotion he said it was what he called nice

(hate that bloody term)

So had to beg to differ and left it at that it would have been fruitless to have continued the conversation.

 

[CV3]

I think of a craftsman as a artist. I think the emotion evoked is more often than not brought about by the skill of the craftsman. And it is in the eye of the beholder. When some one can take a stick and a block of wood and replicate wield life or the human face and form as will as the use of decretive designs, he or she is an artist. Talent comes from a persons desire to improve their skills in the craft he or she enjoys. I would not keep carving if the challenge to get better was not in my heart. I think it was a year before what I carved on a stick was recognizable. My carving is my art! I don't much care who likes it. My grandkids and my dog always do!!!

 

[gdenby]

I keep in mind a quote attributed to Da Vinci that went something like "Art is not made by the hand, art is made by the mind." Note, nobody thought Da Vinci lacked any manual skill.

(I also keep in mind an older aphorism. Don't bother arguing about matters of taste.)

From what I've read, for most of history the terms for arts or crafts could be used almost interchangeably, but there was a distinction that often depended on class. If something had to be done mostly out of physical necessity, it was "craft." If it was done to satisfy a more purely cultural end, such as depicting the deeds of heroes, the practice tended towards "art."

Present use of the terms is still very much influenced by a sort of crisis in 19th century European arts. After several hundred years of "academic" practice, fundamental skills in depiction had been very well defined. Methods of composition were well defined. Unfortunately, generations of virtuoso artists had been reduced to formulaic practices. Poetry had been turned to prose.

As a response, artists who eventually would be lumped under the term "Romantics" began to offer works in competition w. the academics. It appears in hindsight that the downfall of the academics was due to the widespread use of photography. Within less than a generation, artists who had developed phenomenal skills in representation found a great deal of what they had to offer was no longer interesting. Those who worked in a looser manner, such as the Impressionists, flourished.

Emotion and expression gained a great deal of cache. Anything that could be produced by "merely mechanical" means lost a lot of credibility. For a time, craft was split away from art.

The classical tradition of building on predecessors work was partially supplanted by ignoring the predecessors, if not denigrating them. Note, the Impressionist and Romantics often admired Velasquez and Rembrandt, whose mastery had not been absorbed by the academy.

For me, that fracture is less important. Having spent decades working in a museum (and seeing a very large amount of poor art in all styles), I've realized that whatever is expressed by the artwork, if its material craft is deficient, the expression isn't going to last very long. In those cases, the art seems to violate the maxim "ars long vita brevis."

So, for me, I have trouble making items where my intended expression is not aided by the best skill I have to form the media. And with age, I don't want to bother with making artifacts that will fall to pieces faster than I will.

 

[rdemler]

I think art is a finished product that's pleasing to the eye.I think craft is the process of getting it to that point....But that's just my opinion.

 

[JJireh]

I see no difference

 

[cobalt]

Think you nade a good piont gdenby about pratical and culture but think its possable to do both.

I am a fan of the arts and crafts movement there ideas and skills are still around today.

Trouble is people want glitiz and glitter and it wont be there tommorow but a decent well made painted /carved item just increases in value ,

The problem with the arts is knowing the right people in the right place at the right time then you can make a living in it.otherwis its just a struggle'

But art isnt just pleasing to the eye and its influences have a great deal of effect on new products and ideas.

People like dahli where exhibitionist some disturbing to look at but chalenging but his films are still pretty shocking still today

 

[gdenby]

The problem with the arts is knowing the right people in the right place at the right time then you can make a living in it.otherwis its just a struggle'

That is very true. Its become more complex, but the art market is still pretty much a matter of patronage, with gallery owners and critics being the middle men.

And speculation. "Will this be the next big thing?" Or worse,"Does this fit with what marketing says is hot button for the next 4 years?

 

[cobalt]

I wish i knew that , but i am happy with what ido.

the next best thing is influenced by the critic and the gaiiery and some time you think what the devil is going on with this stuff .you only have to look at the unmade bed by Tracy Erwin ,which won the turner prize for art

its now fetch 1000s of pounds and is in strage with a private collector.