This brings to mind modern or conceptual art. People say “Anyone could do that.” I have a certain amount of sympathy for that position. — Clarky

Anyone can be a philosopher, right? "I think the world was created by God." Doesn't make you a philosopher. Equally, "I can splash paint on a canvas," does not make you an artist.

"I can splash paint on a canvas," does not make you an artist. — Jackson

On the other hand:

The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly is a complex work of art created by James Hampton over a period of fourteen years. Hampton made the array based on several religious visions that prompted him to prepare for Christ’s return to earth. His reference to the ​“third heaven” is based on scriptures citing it as the ​“heaven of heavens” — God’s realm.

Hampton created his masterpiece in a rented carriage house, transforming its drab interior into a resplendent world. He hand-crafted many of the elements from cardboard and plastic, but added structure with found objects from his neighborhood, such as old furniture and jelly jars, and discards like light bulbs from the federal office buildings in which he worked. Hampton selected shimmering metallic foils, purple paper (now faded to tan), and other materials to evoke spiritual awe and splendor. — Smithsonian American Art Museum

I find this beautiful and moving.

I want to talk about skill, craft, technique — Clarky

As an artist, skill, craft and technique are crucial to what I do. Skill helps me realize what I want to create. Craft is a bit of a vague word to me, but technique is an aspect of skill. They're all very important. This is true across mediums and skill levels; to say that these things are important in making good art doesn't mean that only artists with an advanced level of knowledge and experience are good.

It takes a lot of practice, practice, practice to get to Carnegie Hall--to perfect one's artistic performance to a level where expert musicians and connoisseurs will say, "Well done!" What is true for music is true for other arts; no great novel is a first draft; no great painting is the first sketch; one's home videos will never make it to Cannes or the Oscars.

A professional pianist commented that Haydn's piano scores are more polished than Mozart's. Of course: Haydn had tenure in the Esterhazy court; Mozart had to get out and hustle to maintain an income stream. Plus, Haydn died at 77; Mozart died at 35. I'd be hard pressed to say which one made a bigger splash.

In the first place, there is talent. I could practice till doomsday and would not be asked to perform on so much as a kazoo.

I hear about "fast fashion" (fast turnaround clothing design); It's not haute couture, not that I know much about that either, other than a lot of it looks like ready-made trash. Art might help fashion, but fashion doesn't help art so much.

As for this Collinwood ("the best known neglected thinker of our time"), I tend to be suspicious of statements like "The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft." Perhaps, but what the Greeks valued as "craft" was pretty damn great. Collingwood is to classics the very opposite of what I am to quantum mechanics [zero] but still, there are not many extended texts from the classical era. Generalizations tend to be supported on slim pillars. Besides, we go round and round trying to decide what we will call art.

Thanks for the Animal House snippet.

Aristotle and Plato had great respect for the poets. So calling it "craft" or "art" really is not an important distinction.

Art is not the word art itself but somewhere direct between that word and no word at all(an off-shot definition).

Art is not a painting, nor a song, but somewhere between both and neither.

Art does take skill(to make), technique(for originality) and craft(to make at-all), but above all, skill, as technique is a skill controller and craft is a skill disc.

What one learns in Buddhism is akin to art.

Picture looking around, art is the heat of that moment if, you, the looker, is thinking creatively; so what I ask is the art of looking around?(it can be different).

As an artist, skill, craft and technique are crucial to what I do. Skill helps me realize what I want to create. Craft is a bit of a vague word to me, but technique is an aspect of skill. They're all very important. This is true across mediums and skill levels; to say that these things are important in making good art doesn't mean that only artists with an advanced level of knowledge and experience are good. — Noble Dust

Yes, I'm sure skill is important to you as an artist, but is there art you would call good for which not much skill is needed? I point back to my post on visionary art.

Luck is also an attribute, such as having a good idea ~pop into your mind. Have many artists drew something without prior experience with art/craft?

It takes a lot of practice, practice, practice to get to Carnegie Hall--to perfect one's artistic performance to a level where expert musicians and connoisseurs will say, "Well done!" What is true for music is true for other arts; no great novel is a first draft; no great painting is the first sketch; one's home videos will never make it to Cannes or the Oscars. — Bitter Crank

Expert artists and connoisseurs are not the only or the primary audiences for most art. Technically perfect art without vision and feeling are sterile. Collingwood again:

What is meant by saying that the painter ‘records’ in his picture the experience which he had in painting it? With this question we come to the subject of the audience, for the audience consists of anybody and everybody to whom such records are significant.

It means that the picture, when seen by some one else or by the painter himself subsequently, produces in him (we need not ask how) sensuous-emotional or psychical experiences which, when raised from impressions to ideas by the activity of the spectator’s consciousness, are transmuted into a total imaginative experience identical with that of the painter. This experience of the spectator’s does not repeat the comparatively poor experience of a person who merely looks at the subject; it repeats the richer and more highly organized experience of a person who has not only looked at it but has painted it as well.

I agree with Collingwood on this. I think art tries to convey one person's experience to another. I guess good art succeeds in that effort. To make good art, you have to have an experience worth conveying.

As for this Collinwood ("the best known neglected thinker of our time"), I tend to be suspicious of statements like "The Greeks and Romans had no conception of what we call art as something different from craft." Perhaps, but what the Greeks valued as "craft" was pretty damn great. — Bitter Crank

For what it's worth, Collingwood was a philosopher as well as a practicing historian and archeologist. Skeptical or not, I think what he says is worth listening to.

Besides, we go round and round trying to decide what we will call art. — Bitter Crank711962

As indicated in the OP, I don't intend this to be a discussion of the definition of art.

Picture looking around, art is the heat of that moment if, you, the looker, is thinking creatively; so what I ask is the art of looking around?(it can be different). — Varde

I don't understand.

Luck is also an attribute, such as having a good idea ~pop into your mind. Have many artists drew something without prior experience with art/craft? — Varde

I have ideas all the time. I'm pretty good at putting them into words, but normally I could not express them musically or visually. Even when what is in my mind is visual I can express it better in words than in images.

is there art you would call good for which not much skill is needed? — Clarky

I don't think so. Hampton's "Throne" looks very skillfully made to me (I was unaware of it by the way, thanks for turning me on to it). I get frustrated by the notion that it's possible to make good art without a lot of skill; why don't we apply this idea to other fields? Can a carpenter be good without much skill? Can an engineer be good without much skill? An electrical engineer maybe?

I think people apply this fantasy to art because they don't understand art or the creative process. If they did, they wouldn't make the mistake. People like myself have put thousands of hours of work into what we do; years and years of work. This week alone I've spent probably around 12 hours total notating a solo piano piece that's five minutes long. I'm not done yet and this is just the first draft. I'll probably spend at least 5 hours fine tuning it and redoing parts of it. I'm not even sure how readable it is; I plan on sending it to my brother for feedback, and my guess is he's going to say it needs work. This is just the musical notation, not a performance of the piece. Anyway, I hope you get the idea of my point here.

Anyway, the point I was going to make before I went on a rant is that I think even art that appears to not require much skill requires more than you think. Simplicity is often harder to pull off than complexity. Simplicity requires a different skill set.

Thinking out loud here (sorry for the spam), I think what's missing is that creativity itself is a skill. Skill isn't just technical competence; the ability to look at the world from a specific viewpoint in order to bring something creatively unique into existence is absolutely a skill; so whether the result is something complex or simple isn't important.

I don't think so. Hampton's "Throne" looks very skillfully made to me (I was unaware of it by the way, thanks for turning me on to it). — Noble Dust

Here's a close-up of one part of the sculpture.



I don't mean this as criticism at all, but it doesn't look skillful to me. Beautiful, yes.

I think people apply this fantasy to art because they don't understand art or the creative process. If they did, they wouldn't make the mistake. People like myself have put thousands of hours of work into what we do; years and years of work. This week alone I've spent probably around 12 hours total notating a solo piano piece that's five minutes long. I'm not done yet and this is just the first draft. I'll probably spend at least 5 hours fine tuning it and redoing parts of it. This is just the musical notation, not a performance of the piece. Anyway, I hope you get the idea of my point here. — Noble Dust

As I noted in the OP, my thinking was set off by an example of what I consider a very skillful piece of music. In "Missing Vassar" my pleasure would not have been nearly as strong if it were played poorly. On the other hand, I find this much less polished performance very moving.

Anyway, the point I was going to make before I went on a rant is that I think even art that appears to not require much skill requires more than you think. Simplicity is often harder to pull off than complexity. Simplicity requires a different skill set. — Noble Dust

What are your thoughts on the Woody Guthrie video?

Thinking out loud here (sorry for the spam), I think what's missing is that creativity itself is a skill. Skill isn't just technical competence; the ability to look at the world from a specific viewpoint in order to bring something creatively unique into existence is absolutely a skill; so whether the result is something complex or simple isn't important. — Noble Dust

Sure. That's sort of my point, or at least my question. How much does vision and creativity make up for lack of technical skill

What are your thoughts on the Woody Guthrie video? — Clarky

I like that song, but I don't feel any need to listen to it for my own pleasure (I listened to it just now of course). It's a culturally significant song. As a younger person it has more historical interest to me than anything. I think he was skilled, but more in a creative way. He was also in the right place at the right time, which is a significant part of success in art.

How much does vision and creativity make up for lack of technical skill — Clarky

I don't know how to quantify how much. I like the simplicity of Coldplay:



Ultimately I think vision and creativity are more important because they tend to be what drives the emotional impact of a work, which is ultimately what art does; communicates things emotionally and intuitively in ways that nothing else can. But of course a base level of skill is still required; Woody can play guitar decently. Chris Martin has a nice singing voice. Their drummer can play the drums.

.https://i.ibb.co/bQM4KRk/Tumblr-l-34255278295980.jpg

This art took a lot of skill and an amount of luck.

One of the issues of art and skill is to do with social position and culture. Some people go to art schools to learn techniques and where one has studied may be as important too. The outsider art movement was important because it was about people who would in usual circumstances be excluded. However, it was only a fairly small movement, as folk art and it does seem that visual art is still elitist in many ways.

With other arts it is so variable with different segments. For example, someone trained in classical music may look down on the music of Oasis or Ed Sheeran, for example, but some may not. There is popular culture and so many genres and it is likely that each have different criteria for evaluating skills. It may be about guitar solos or songwriting, and also fashions within genres change so much. For example, there was the whole trend of English singers putting on an American accent, and the rough and ready aspects of punk and many music subcultures.

Even with fiction books there are so many different ways of thinking about skill and technique, with the tension between popular, the many specialist genres, as well as classical fiction and literary fiction. There may be a change in emphasis on technique and skill as more people are publishing their own work online.

But with the various arts techniques are bound up with different aspects of culture and with marketing. Some of it may be about techniques and some of it as snobbery value as well. Sometimes this may miss the creative processes and it is likely that many creative people never get well known. Then, there is the other extreme of Van Gogh, who was became an enigma after his death, like some musicians too, such as Hendrix. There is also what Todd Rundegrun called ' The Popular Tortured Artist Effect', and apart from art as creative expression there is also the arts therapies which focus more on the psychotherapeutic potential of art more than skill and technique.

Yes, I'm sure skill is important to you as an artist, but is there art you would call good for which not much skill is needed? I point back to my post on visionary art. — Clarky

Skill is just the means to make the work. But you have to know what to make.

Expert artists and connoisseurs are not the only or the primary audiences for most art. — Clarky

Quite so. But they have expert music teachers (for musical performance).

Technically perfect art without vision and feeling are sterile. — Clarky

I'm not sure what "technically perfect art" looks or sounds like. Or that perfection leads to blind sterility. Here's a demo of Isaac Stern teaching students in China (1979) how to get vision and feeling from their violins.

To make good art, you have to have an experience worth conveying. — Clarky

The unexamined life isn't worth painting.

Skeptical — Clarky

For what it's worth, Collingwood was a philosopher as well as a practicing historian and archeologist. Skeptical or not, I think what he says is worth listening to. — Clarky

Quite so. It's not Collinwood's fault that the Greeks and Romans used media that rotted in dampness instead of baked clay tablets. Our civilization's output will vanish in the entropy of magnetic storage, as well as from our libraries turning into fungal farms. Who will save a fragment of our thought? The Mall of America's hulking big boxiness will remain, but without the great art it inspired (he said sarcastically).

Good thread!

What are your thoughts on the Woody Guthrie video? — Clarky

Guthrie sang the homespun virtues of the common folk. "He captured the heart of hard economic times and war while struggling with poverty and personal demons." He wasn't famous for his voice not in the way that Pete Seeger was. Malvina Reynolds wrote some memorable songs -- among them "Little Boxes" Her voice is even less attractive than Woody Guthrie. Reynolds was a PhD in English / Communist / protest song composer / wife / mother.

One of her songs was used for a charming Kodak commercial back in the 60s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKOPwEk6m4w

The unexamined life isn't worth painting. — Bitter Crank

I've thought about this. The only real skill I have is writing, but not the kind of writing that would typically be called artistic. I am not particularly self-conscious about where the words, spoken or written, come from. I feel them coming out. I reread them and see if they make sense and edit if necessary. I don't think there's much examining going on when most artists create. From what I've seen in interviews, many of them are not particularly articulate about the process.

It's not Collinwood's fault that the Greeks and Romans used media that rotted in dampness instead of baked clay tablets. — Bitter Crank

I have more confidence in Collingwood's understanding of classical art than I do in yours.

@Bitter Crank

As an artist (sorry, I feel like such an asshole when I say that sort of thing), I do a lot of examination of life (I joined this philosophy forum after all), but yes, when I'm creating a work, I'm not examining. I think that's an important distinction. The unexamined life may not be worth dancing about, but that doesn't mean the dancer isn't examining first and then dancing intuitively.

As well you should. That most of Greek and Roman literature has been lost is the judgement of classics scholars, not mine.

What we do have is a much larger body of what we call art, what they called craft - sculpture, friezes, mosaics, painting (Pompeii, for instance). The dining room wall decoration from a Pompeii house is likely to end up in an art museum, but we'd likely agree -- this is craft, not art. It's decor, like wallpaper. It is thought that Greco-Roman sculpture was painted--shocking! What? The Winged Victory of Samothrace a painted lady! Much of what survives are copies--very good copies, but still.

As far as the unexamined life goes, our good fortune is that Hogarth found the lives of louts worth examining in pencil and paint.
'

what they called craft - sculpture — Bitter Crank

Woah you just set off a bomb in my brain. Something for another thread.

Let's see. The guy sitting in the middle back with the big wig is clearly Trump. The guy standing over him with his glass raised is Giuliani. The guy on the floor in front is Jeffrey Clark. Not sure who the rest are. I guess I don't recognize them because they all plead the 5th and didn't show up in the videos. I think this is the meeting when they were all asking for a pardon.

when I'm creating a work, I'm not examining — Noble Dust

The 'flow' of creativity is best not interrupted.

I think so.

How much of my enjoyment of the song came from the skill of the musicians? What else matters? — Clarky

Good question. Quick brain dump with some opining. We tend to enjoy the things we already appreciate. Why do we like them? Because we like things like them. So if craft is important to you, it's probably because you already like well executed things. Some artforms are all about the craft (classical music) but sometimes really accomplished performers can sound slightly soulless. I can't explain this but for me technical skill is pointless without something more - perhaps it is emotion.

I have had a side hustle as a writer (TV and journalism and speech writing) this is definitely a craft. But when done with sufficient inspiration could be an artform. For me, however, great writing almost always seems like craft - even Nabokov or Edith Wharton.

My favourite singers are not great vocalists - Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen - but they have something more - what is it? Buggered if I know, but it matters to me. Doesn't hurt that their songs are brilliantly written and make the most of their range, such as it is.

but sometimes really accomplished performers can sound slightly soulless. — Tom Storm

True, but in classical music, for example, interpretation is so key. Especially in what I consider the golden age, the late romantic to early modern period; the music of that era is so malleable that interpretation becomes everything. A lot of the music from that era is so damn hard to play that a faithful interpretation is just rare. Pogorelich is an example of a master who, in my opinion, played Ravel properly and was able to coax out the emotional content while also being a virtuoso and able to play impossible music properly.

perhaps it is emotion. — Tom Storm

Perhaps!?

For me, however, great writing almost always seems like craft — Tom Storm

Can you define "craft"? I still don't understand this word.

but they have something more - what is it? Buggered if I know — Tom Storm

You're feeling feelings Tommy boy! Embrace it!

Can you define "craft"? I still don't understand this word. — Noble Dust

For me craft focuses on skill - a work is loosely or strictly based upon a pattern or formula (eg, song writing, journalism, ship building, making a table). Making a pair of boots is a craft - there is a pattern to follow. Some craftspeople go a step or two further and can make a pair of boots a thing of beauty. Perhaps this is high craft, some might even call it art at that level. But none of this is exact and this is only my working definition.

I worked briefly for an antiquities/art dealer in the 1980's who sometimes sold 'important' paintings. In discussing the work they would often separate out art from craft and talk about the work's emotional impact, capacity to surprise, etc (art) as opposed to the extent to which the artists was a competent draftsperson (craft).