I go with 2, although I kind of like 3 also. — T Clark

Craft without Art is like Sex without Love. — Janus

HEADSLAP!

It's a comment of modern artists who don't get their hands dirty.

Craft without Love is like Sex without Art — Janus

no it is not.

Scintillating arguments Charlie! :rofl:

There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

HEADSLAP! — charleton

If you slap your head too many times you might addle your thoughts. Oh..wait...

There is no argument necessary to counter crapology.

What you really mean is that you think it is crap, but you can't find any argument to support your thought.

Experience as an artist, and as a horny fucker and lover leads me to art without craft is like sex without love.
Your clumsy attempts to paraphrase me, either are off topic, or confused.

Can you understand that your experience and the conclusions it might lead to are meaningless to others without explanation?
And I wasn't attempting to paraphrase you. Paraphrasing is saying the same thing in different words; I was saying a different thing using the same words.

The haunting beauty of birdsong, the provocative performance of erotic display in primates, the attraction of insects to the perfume of plants are all in excess of mere survival, which Darwin understands in terms of natural selection: these forms of sexual selection, sexual attraction, affirm the excessiveness of the body and the natural order, their capacity to bring out in each other what surprises, what is of no use but nevertheless attracts and appeals. Each affirms an overabundance of resources beyond the need for mere survival, which is to say, to the capacity of both matter and life to exchange with each other, to enter into becomings that transform each". (Chaos, Territory, Art) — StreetlightX

This is clearly a poor anthropomorphization; the only thing artistic about those things is our perception of the beauty of those things. Does a bird hear a sexual mating call as beautiful? There's no answer because that question is meaningless. The bird hear's the call, and there is a sexual response. That's all we know. It's meaningless to even ask the question whether the bird perceives the call as beautiful, and therefore, artistic. Hence the poor anthropomorphization.

A painting could be considered an example of skilled, honest labor, although some art doesn't seem to care much about skill - technique. Is that a related question - does good art require technical skill? — T Clark

Labor to me means work that serves a specific purpose. So a painting doesn't fall into that category. The welder did the welding so the bike would run properly, allowing the biker to travel. A painter paints a painting for unclear reasons, and the potential reasons are endless.

In what way is Picasso different from a mechanic? That's the question Pirsig raises for me. — T Clark

See above.

Effortlessness in that if flows directly from the heart onto the canvas? Effortless technical skill? — T Clark

Yes and yes?

I'm not sure about the whole "no utilitarian meaning," thing. Are self-expression and communication utilitarian? Is displaying the majesty of God utilitarian? — T Clark

They aren't those things to the extent that I understand the term "utilitarian". Actually, I am a bit sick of that distinction. What I want to say is that art doesn't serve any specific purpose, or fill any "role" in culture. Art makes culture. It's like the backdrop upon which culture is draped; it creates the story of culture. I'm just spit-balling here; I always fall short when trying to describe this sort of thing.

I like it because it says the world is created not by God only, but also by man, which is the deepest foundation of my understanding of the world. — T Clark

:up:

What role does craft play in art, then? It's unclear what you mean, and the bold type didn't help.

Can you understand that your experience and the conclusions it might lead to are meaningless to others without explanation? — Janus

Doubtful, but valiant effort.

When has it?

To the contrary, the issue is not anthropomorphism but a vast underestimation of animals on your part. There is an answer to your question because there is ample evidence that birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics, and that this dicrimination is widespread and powerful enough to act as a mechanism of evolutionary selection unto it's own: sexual selection. Importantly, sexual selection operates on the basis on a genuine aesthetic choice, which means not only that animals are sensitive to beauty qua beauty, but that that sensitivity has had vast impacts on the very phylogenesis of animals. I quote from Richard Prum, an ornithologist who has written perhaps the best book I know on the subject, The Evolution of Beauty:

"Today, Darwin’s choice of aesthetic language can seem quaint, anthropomorphic, and possibly even embarrassingly silly. Clearly, Darwin did not have our contemporary fear of anthropomorphism. Indeed, he was engaged in breaking down the previously unquestioned barrier between humans and other forms of life. Darwin’s use of aesthetic language was not just a curious mannerism, or a quaint Victorian affectation, but an integral feature of his scientific argument about the nature of evolutionary process. Darwin used ordinary aesthetic language to make an extraordinary scientific claim: mate choices based on the subjective evaluations of animals drive the evolution of sexual ornaments in nature. By using the words beauty, taste, charm, appreciate, admire, and love, Darwin proposed that mating preferences evolved for displays that had no utilitarian value, other than the pleasure they evoked to the chooser." (Richard Prum, Beauty Happens).

Whoever the 'we' are that you invoke in your claim that 'that's all we know', it isn't the 'we' of biological science. It sounds a great deal more like an 'I'.

there is ample evidence that birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics — StreetlightX

Great; I'd love to see it.

"Today, Darwin’s choice of aesthetic language can seem quaint, anthropomorphic, and possibly even embarrassingly silly. Clearly, Darwin did not have our contemporary fear of anthropomorphism. Indeed, he was engaged in breaking down the previously unquestioned barrier between humans and other forms of life. Darwin’s use of aesthetic language was not just a curious mannerism, or a quaint Victorian affectation, but an integral feature of his scientific argument about the nature of evolutionary process. Darwin used ordinary aesthetic language to make an extraordinary scientific claim: mate choices based on the subjective evaluations of animals drive the evolution of sexual ornaments in nature. By using the words beauty, taste, charm, appreciate, admire, and love, Darwin proposed that mating preferences evolved for displays that had no utilitarian value, other than the pleasure they evoked to the chooser." (Richard Prum, Beauty Happens). — StreetlightX

So Darwin used aesthetic language, and thus, animals experience aesthetics? That's all I'm finding in that quote.

Whoever the 'we' are that you invoke in your claim that 'that's all we know', it isn't the 'we' of biological science. It sounds a great deal more like an 'I'. — StreetlightX

Indeed, your appeal to Prum and Darwin sound a great deal like "I" as well.

Yes, the appeal to actual real life scientists sounds like an "I". Uh-huh. I gave you citations - a link to an article even - feel free to educate yourself.

That's such a poor response. What evidence did you give to site your statements that "birds - and other animals - discriminate between potential partners on the basis of aesthetics", and, again, where in the Prum quote is any actual evidence presented that suggests that animals experience aesthetics? Come on man, I know you're way smarter and well-read than me.

I cited a whole book! What more do you want?? How about Michael Ryan's A Taste for the Beautiful? That's two books.

I want a discussion of ideas where you present your ideas about aesthetics, not citations of entire books. You seem incapable of even presenting your own unique aesthetic position. I can site entire books too! Have you read Berdyaev's The Meaning of The Creative Act?? Of course you haven't! Shame!

But these aren't my ideas about aesthetics. These are other people's ideas, supported by a bunch of evidence. I'm realying them to you. My gosh, if you want a third book, you can read Darwin's Descent of Man, where he lays out the theory of sexual selection. Or Grosz's own research, presented in the book the quote is from - or better yet in her Becoming Undone. Or you could do your own reading about sexual selection. It's like someone asking me to prove that natural selection is a thing. No, if you're unaware of it, then don't join the discussion, and certainly don't tell me I'm wrong. I'm not the one contesting Berdyaev on the basis of being entirely unfamiliar with Berdyaev.

But these aren't my ideas about aesthetics. These are other people's ideas, supported by a bunch of evidence. — StreetlightX

The problem is that you've provided quotes, but no quotes that actually depict that evidence. I would assume it would be easy for you to do so, but so far you apparently haven't bothered.

Furthermore, if you have no ideas about aesthetics of your own, your own unique take on what aesthetics is, within the context of philosophy, then I've certainly lost some amount of respect for you, despite your vast knowledge (as proved by your tome of a post in the currently reading section). You can read all day, and have nothing to say.

It's like someone asking me to prove that natural selection is a thing. — StreetlightX

Me asking you whether animals experience aesthetics is patently not the same as me asking you whether natural selection is a thing. You're grandstanding here; seeking emotional support for your emotional positions.

Most of what I think and say is not my own! Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. How could it be otherwise? I neither think it desirable nor admirable to vie for any kind of lofty solitude in a field as interesting and rich as philosophy. And you asking this in a thread about quotes from other people? Come on.

And my point is that sexual selection - which is a mechanism of evolution - provides evidence that animals experience aesthetics. And sexual selection is well studied, much discussed, well documented subject of study. If you want to argue about the invocation of sexual selection as evidence, then by all means. But other than showing you where you can do your own research, I'm simply not going to give you an evolutionary biology 102 lesson. At least not without a fee! Will also accept a nice dinner.

Most of what I think is not my own! Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. I niether think it desireable nor admirable to vie for any kind of lofty 'ideas of my own' in a field as interesting and rich as philospohy, or even science. I'm a cobbler, nothing more. — StreetlightX

Fascinating! We're the opposite. I wouldn't do my own intuition such a dis-service as to deny it it's natural function. Of course my aesthetics are informed by many other thinkers; but my aesthetics are uniquely my own. It's easy to throw around the term hubris; but it's harder to allow oneself the freedom of realizing the singularity of one's own intuition with regards to aesthetics. You're remaining in a cage if you can't allow this for yourself. The cult of specialities prevents the reality of generalities, and the reality of aesthetic intuition. It sounds like you're devoid of this ability. Indeed, you concede that most of what you think is not your own. Not most of what you know is not your own (which would be more accurate), but most of what you think is not your own. In other words, you don't think for yourself.

And my point is that sexual selection - which is a mechanism of evolution - provides evidence that animals experience aesthetics. And sexual selection is well studied, much discussed, well documented subject of study. If you want to argue about the invocation of sexual selection as evidence, then by all means. But other than showing you where you can do your own research, I'm simply not going to give you a evolutionary biology 102 lesson. At least not with a fee! — StreetlightX

All you have to do is provide a better quote than the one you provided which demonstrates that animals experience aesthetics. You're backtracking and making me look uneducated because you didn't provide a good quote.

Edited for blatant clarity, apologies. Was typing quickly.

And you asking this in a thread about quotes from other people? Come on. — StreetlightX

Yup, I asked for quotes on art for the sake of "contemplation and discussion". You apparently don't do well when your offered quotes get scrutinized with discussion.

Eh, I've always liked Neitzsche' quip that thinking is not something that anyone does but is that which befalls them. I have no claim to mastery over my own thoughts. It's certainly the oddest cage you might come across.

All you have to do is provide a better quote than the one you provided which demonstrates that sexual selection is real. You're backtracking and making me look uneducated because you didn't provide a good quote. — Noble Dust

I provided a quote from an article which I linked to. It's blue and everything. Did you read the article? I could copy and paste the article, but I don't think it would make for a great forum post.

Eh, I've always liked Neitzsche' quip that thinking is not something that anyone does but is that which befalls them. I have no claim to mastery over my own thoughts. It's certainly the oddest cage you might come across. — StreetlightX

It's a good axiom. It doesn't mean you and I can't have original thoughts. You're better than that; you have some interesting thoughts of your own inside you; you just need to let them out.

I provided a quote from an article which I linked to. It's blue and everything. Did you read the article? I could copy and paste the article, but I don't think it would make for a great forum post. — StreetlightX

I haven't read it yet; I'm happy to. The point is that 1) you provided a quote which didn't actually make your point, and 2) you then complained that I didn't read the article, etc. The remedy is to post a better quote next time, which I've said several times now.

Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology. Anyway, I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise. You asked for evidence, and I gave you citations. And the evidence is certainty more than can fit in a paragraph or two. Perhaps look up the evolution of feathers. Or how the Bower bird nest came to be. Or the how the club-winged manakin came to be. Or the evolution of duck sex. Duck sex is super interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/how-beauty-evolves/525741/

Eh, enough with the pseudo-psychology. — StreetlightX

Eh, what pseudo-pyschology?

I complained that you made an unsubstantiated claim, when all the established evidence shows otherwise. — StreetlightX

Where did you make this complaint? And the evidence you offered was insufficient, as I've said too many times now. We're going in circles now.