True, but in classical music, for example, interpretation is so key. — Noble Dust

Maybe a soulless technical performance is just one without much of an interpretation or 'personality'. I have to say the more I think about it the less any of this seems to matter to me. There's just what I like and everyone else has pisspoor taste. :wink:

You're feeling feelings Tommy boy! Embrace it! — Noble Dust

I don't think it is emotion - that doesn't generally work for me, it has to have something more. It's a visceral thing.

So if craft is important to you, it's probably because you already like well executed things. — Tom Storm

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

I love bridges. Well-built stone structures - Machu Picchu is the most beautiful thing in the world. 2000 year old Roman aqueducts. New England is a good place for that. I like things that are like stone walls - arguments laid out like bricks to build a wall of evidence. That's one of the reasons I loved "Origin of species." When I write non-fiction, I try to write like that. I love houses. Small towns. Big cities. Things made with workmanlike economy for practical purposes without cutting corners. Structures that grow organically and fit in with their neighbors. Things that are beautiful because they are well-made. I guess that's what craft means to me. I think this is what Pirsig meant when he said art is high-quality endeavor.

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. — Tom Storm

This gets to the heart of it for me. If you believe, as I do, that art is anything made to be judged aesthetically, how do you classify things that are made to be useful, comfortable, and reliable for which aesthetics is secondary at most?

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. — Noble Dust

Classical music was one of the main things I was thinking about when I started this thread. It seems like the place where skill and art come as close as possible. I don't have much to say because it isn't my music. The most I can say is "Me like. Sound purty." I was hoping someone would bring it up.

This gets to the heart of it for me. If you believe, as I do, that art is anything made to be judged aesthetically, how do you classify things that are made to be useful, comfortable, and reliable for which aesthetics is secondary at most? — T Clark

What you do you mean by "aesthetics?"

What you do you mean by "aesthetics?" — Jackson

"Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty."

"Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty." — T Clark

Oh. Why do you think art is only about beauty?

Oh. Why do you think art is only about beauty? — Jackson

I don't think that's all there is to it, but I think the definition I gave makes sense. Lot's of others don't agree. We've had long discussions of that in the past.

So, you don't care. ok.

So, you don't care. ok. — Jackson

There you go, being all grouchy and sarcastic and dismissive and stuff.

There you go, being all grouchy and sarcastic and dismissive and stuff. — T Clark

Sorry, I forgot to agree with everything you say.

This gets to the heart of it for me. If you believe, as I do, that art is anything made to be judged aesthetically, how do you classify things that are made to be useful, comfortable, and reliable for which aesthetics is secondary at most? — T Clark

I've pondered this for some years. My imperfect answer is that such objects are craft works, not art works. One area where this gets tricky is in what is often called 'art of the ancient world'. Two items spring to mind - an Egyptian sarcophagus made of cartonage, painted, colourful and decorative; and an Athenian painted vase vase. They are both objects primarily designed to have a function - a coffin and a jug respectively. They they are now admired solely for the art they reveal. Are they everyday crafted objects which have transcended their status is some way? Or are do they embody a kind of dualism of purpose - equally both art and craft?

Are they everyday crafted objects which have transcended their status is some way? Or are do they embody a kind of dualism of purpose - equally both art and craft? — Tom Storm

I have been an artist about 35 years. Crafts people get angry when you say it is not art. I don't see the problem. Art is not about beauty, it is about making objects which convey meaning.

Agree. I have seen that anger too. The reason this subject sets people off is that there is often an implicit assumption that art has a higher status than craft. Maybe a remnant of Platonism. I do not have a definition of art but Ive generally held that art's primary job is providing an aesthetic experience. But @Clarky would prefer us not to get stuck in this particular bog again.

Agree. I have seen that anger too. The reason this subject sets people off is that there is often an implicit assumption that art has a higher status than craft. Maybe a remnant of Platonism. I do not have a definition of art but Ive generally held that art's primary job is providing an aesthetic experience. But Clarky would prefer us not to get stuck in this particular bog again. — Tom Storm

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong.

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong. — Jackson

I don't think it is wrong. It's just not my definition. I generally prefer not to make totalizing statements when it comes to aesthetics. Someone could come along and explain what beauty means in a much fuller, richer intergrated way that I can have imagined. Just saying...

I don't think it is wrong. It's just not my definition. I generally prefer not to make totalizing statements when it comes to aesthetics. Someone could come along and explain what beauty means in a much fuller, richer intergrated way that I can have imagined. Just saying... — Tom Storm

We are different. I actually have studied those claims about beauty. They are wrong. Every opinion is not correct because one opines.

Start a thread on art and beauty if you haven't already. This is for another discussion.

Start a thread on art and beauty if you haven't already. This is for another discussion — Tom Storm

bye

Art is not about beauty, it is about making objects which convey meaning. — Jackson

Art for art’s sake is not art then? That can’t be right, can it?

Art for art’s sake is not art then? That can’t be right, can it? — praxis

Not sure what you're saying. Art for art's sake was a motto for decorative art.

I've pondered this for some years. My imperfect answer is that such objects are craft works, not art works. One area where this gets tricky is in what is often called 'art of the ancient world'. Two items spring to mind - an Egyptian sarcophagus made of cartonage, painted, colourful and decorative; and an Athenian painted vase vase. They are both objects primarily designed to have a function - a coffin and a jug respectively. They they are now admired solely for the art they reveal. Are they everyday crafted objects which have transcended their status is some way? Or are do they embody a kind of dualism of purpose - equally both art and craft? — Tom Storm

I brought Collingwood into this discussion because of the distinction between art and craft he made and because he writes that ancient Greeks didn't think about art the way we do. That makes me think of some ancient Chinese writing where they look to skilled butchers and other craftsmen as embodying spiritual values. Since the subject of this thread is the role of skill in art, the question that comes to mind is what, beyond skill, makes craft.

Not sure what you're saying. Art for art's sake was a motto for decorative art. — Jackson

Forgive me for utilizing my common sense but wouldn’t that be art for the sake of decoration?

Forgive me for utilizing my common sense but wouldn’t that be art for the sake of decoration? — praxis

Where did you hear that phrase, Art for art's sake?

Then tell me what it means to you.

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong. — Jackson

You can make any word mean anything you want it to mean by waving your hand at it. Generally, though, when you use a word it makes sense to use it as it is commonly understood. Otherwise you're just talking to yourself.

Aesthetics, or esthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks, iːs-, æs-/), is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of beauty and taste, as well as the philosophy of art (its own area of philosophy that comes out of aesthetics).[1] It examines aesthetic values, often expressed through judgments of taste.[2] — Wikipedia

Aesthetics may be defined narrowly as the theory of beauty, or more broadly as that together with the philosophy of art. — IEP

dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty — Merriam-Webster

Sorry, but I ignore people who think dictionaries and wiki are philosophical arguments.

Sorry, but I ignore people who think dictionaries and wiki are philosophical arguments. — Jackson

You keep saying you're not going to pay attention to me any more, but then you keep sticking your $0.02 in.

You keep saying you're not going to pay attention to me any more — T Clark

I never said that, do not lie.

I never said that, do not lie. — Jackson

I will just ignore you from now on. — Jackson

Then tell me what it means to you. — Jackson

Personal aesthetic expression, to put it broadly.

What does “making objects which convey meaning” mean to you? Dictionary’s are objects made to convey meaning, for instance, and you don’t seem to like those objects much.

My advice is to contribute more than a sentence at a time. You're clearly well-read, but your post quality is extremely low. Most of us here are posting in good faith, so investing time and effort will go a long way. If you don't do that, as you haven't, then you'll reap what you've sown. As you have. Best of luck.