Get lost.

That doesn't work either. In your own words, "Bye".

Maybe a soulless technical performance is just one without much of an interpretation or 'personality'. — Tom Storm

Interesting; I like this. So a soulless technical performance is just playing "the right notes" (sorry, hard for me to get outside of music in these discussions) without a creative interpretation that elevates the piece (or the dance, or whatever).

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

Interesting as well. I equivocate visceral with emotional. What is something visceral that doesn't hit you emotionally?

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. — T Clark

Ok, I think I'm starting to get a sense of "craft". Craft seems separate from artistic. For instance, this mid-2015 macbook pro I'm typing on is generally considered the "best" macbook pro build of all time; the ones that came after were prone to all sorts of defects. This machine is considered the best of its "craft"; i.e. it's ergonomic, the hardware and software play well together (with a proven track record) and the thing is just built to last, unlike some models. Is that craft? I'm asking you.

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 guess I classify useful things by how useful they are. But I'm also not an aesthete when it comes to practical stuff; I know people that love beautiful glassware, cabinetry, motorcycles, etc. People who love useful things that are also aesthetic. I'm not the type of person who appreciates that; I've been a musician since I was a kid, so my appreciation of aesthetics tends to be pretty heavily focused on art for arts sake. But I want to be able to have an aesthetic appreciation for useful objects that are also aesthetic; I just don't seem to have it in me. I guess I do like good glassware. But when I break a piece, I'm annoyed for a day or two, and then I forget it existed. Especially if I find a replacement.

Interesting as well. I equivocate visceral with emotional. What is something visceral that doesn't hit you emotionally? — Noble Dust

I'm just reaching for words to convey some idea that it's more ineffable. You are probably right that visceral is the wrong word. Now the reason I say it isn't just about emotion is that I can listen to 100 pop songs and none will hit target. But a Waits song will. There is something about how it is done that is central to its impact. Maybe the 'how', the presentation is the emotion? Anyway apart from old school blues (Muddy Waters, Little Walter, etc) I generally don't listen to any music with voice, certainly no folk, rock or pop.

But a Waits song will. — Tom Storm

Ah, but Waits is a big baby boy, right? I love him to death, but he's an emotional creature; that's why his music is so important. From my view, his way of getting at emotion works for you, so he gets you from A to B.

I wouldn't' say that the "how" is the emotion, but rather that the how can elicit specific emotions, so the how will touch some people emotionally but not others.

Anyway apart from old school blues (Muddy Waters, Little Walter, etc) I generally don't listen to any music with voice, certainly no folk, rock or pop. — Tom Storm

Haha, you are so hard core, which I respect. Love old school blues.

Ok, I think I'm starting to get a sense of "craft". Craft seems separate from artistic. — Noble Dust

I think Collingwood's point is that there are people who don't see them as separate. Or maybe who think there is no art and only craft. Or for whom the distinction never crosses their mind. And while it's easy for me to think of something not skillfully made as art, it's hard for me to think of something that isn't as craft.

I know people that love beautiful glassware, cabinetry, motorcycles, etc. — Noble Dust

I love what they call the "decorative arts." I always loved that section of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Furniture, silver, stained glass, clothing.



Is that art? That's the question at hand. If we use my criteria - art is something presented to be judged aesthetically - maybe not. But that brings us back to my original question - how important is skill to art? I'm confused. This is fun. Just what I wanted to talk about.

I'm not the type of person who appreciates that; I've been a musician since I was a kid, so my appreciation of aesthetics tends to be pretty heavily focused on art for arts sake. — Noble Dust

@Tom Storm wrote earlier he sees good writing as craft. I agree. Can't the same can be said for music?

I guess I do like good glassware. But when I break a piece, I'm annoyed for a day or two, and then I forget it existed. — Noble Dust

For me, one of the best things about glassware is that it's breakable. In order to love it, you have to be ready to let it go. I made a Christmas tree ornament for my daughter. It's a small cardboard box. Inside is a broken glass ornament. If you shake it you can hear the pieces jangle. On the cover is a label that says "Is this art?" When I gave it to her I gave her a picture of what was inside. Now, whether or not that is art, I think it is clearly not craft, except maybe in the sense we mean it when kindergarteners make napkin rings from old cardboard toilet paper tubes.

Now the reason I say it isn't just about emotion is that I can listen to 100 pop songs and none will hit target. But a Waits song will. — Tom Storm

Love Waits. My favorite:

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. — Jack Cummins

Sorry it took me so long to reply.

I think many people can separate what they like from what they respect. There's music I don't especially enjoy listening to - jazz, rap, some classical - but I can still see that it has value and the musicians have skill and talent. Clearly many popular musicians are very skilled, e.g. the Ricky Scaggs song I played.

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. — Jack Cummins

I often will say that something is well-written but when I step back, I can't really say why. That goes for my own writing. I know when I'm satisfied with what I've written, but I can't tell you why. My own reading is usually genre fiction. In terms of skill, story, and heart, I'll put John LeCarre's George Smiley books up against any modern literary writer.

I think many people can separate what they like from what they respect. — T Clark

Good point and one some people forget - if they don't like it, it's because 'it ain't no good'. There are many things I admire that I want no part of because I don't enjoy them - most long form TV series - e.g., Breaking Bad, The Wire; most opera; Shakespeare plays; graphic novels; stand up comedy. I wonder if this is because I appreciate the craft, but don't respond emotionally to the art.

I wonder if this is because I appreciate the craft, but don't respond emotionally to the art. — Tom Storm

I think the prime example for me is jazz. I used to listen to it quite a bit because there were people where I worked who liked it. I could tell it was good from listening - complex rhythms and melodies and very skilled musicians. People I like and respect love it. Also, jazz DJs are just about the best around. I enjoyed hearing them talk about it more than I did listening to it.

I always loved that section of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Furniture, silver, stained glass, clothing. — T Clark

Haha, I always skip that type of section in museums.

Is that art? That's the question at hand. If we use my criteria - art is something presented to be judged aesthetically - maybe not. But that brings us back to my original question - how important is skill to art? I'm confused. This is fun. Just what I wanted to talk about. — T Clark

Nice silverware and cups are not art, no. Craft appears to be judged more on it's use; art on it's aesthetic appeal. Again, I'm contending that skill is key to art, but skill doesn't just mean technical ability.

wrote earlier he sees good writing as craft. I agree. Can't the same can be said for music? — T Clark

I think that depends on one's temperament. Some schools of thought would agree with you that well written music is craft. I'm not of that persuasion. Music is so malleable. I love ambient music and collage music, sample-based music (the whole world of sampling is a philosophical question unto it's own), noise music. Ultimately, in a grand sense, there are no rules in music, whereas something like writing has to adhere to or at least be aware of the rules of grammar. I guess you can argue that in music you need to adhere to or at least be aware of the rules of harmony and rhythm, but I would even call that into question, personally. Music has the potential for reinventing itself way outside of the lines of its usual definition, I think.

For me, one of the best things about glassware is that it's breakable. In order to love it, you have to be ready to let it go. I made a Christmas tree ornament for my daughter. It's a small cardboard box. Inside is a broken glass ornament. If you shake it you can hear the pieces jangle. On the cover is a label that says "Is this art?" When I gave it to her I gave her a picture of what was inside. Now, whether or not that is art, I think it is clearly not craft, except maybe in the sense we mean it when kindergarteners make napkin rings from old cardboard toilet paper tubes. — T Clark

Cool story. I like the idea of being willing to let good glassware go. The transience and it's relation to your aesthetic appreciation of it; your emotional tie to it...the transience of the emotional tie. Interesting. I need to think about it.

What happend @Agent Smith?

Vis-à-vis art,

Technique: A way of painting, sculpting, writing, composing music, etc.

Skill: Mastery of a technique, sometimes adding a personal touch, a signature move, etc.

Craft: Inter alia a profession involving producing certain products of artistic cum commercial value e.g. smithing, pottery, tailoring, etc.

To craft an item one hasta know a technique and be skilfull as well.

What happend Agent Smith? — Noble Dust

Nuthin'. Thanks for your concern.

Nuthin'. Thanks for your concern. — Agent Smith

I'm not concerned, I'm wondering why you made some latin joke about "no offense" in regards to Jackson telling me to get lost, and then it and my response to it disappeared.

I'm not concerned, I'm wondering why you made some latin joke about "no offense" in regards to Jackson telling me to get lost, and then it and my response to it disappeared. — Noble Dust

If it has disappeared, good that it has. Let's close this chapter.

Craft, as an activity separate from art, aims to produce useful objects, which are more or less fit for purpose and more or less beautiful. Art aims to produce objects solely for aesthetic appreciation (which are therefore more difficult to judge).

Craft, as a part of art, is the application of traditional skills that the artist has been trained in. Or more loosely, it is the skill or technique involved in making a work of art. How important is it? I'd say very important, but it's more complicated than a linear scale of skillfulness.

They say that Van Gogh was not as accomplished a painter as Picasso, but I don't think we can say that he was an inferior artist. I suppose we might say that because Picasso had mastered the traditional artistic skills, he was more able to revolutionize art in the way he did. Things seemed to come easy for him; was that because of technical mastery?

Similarly, there have been many more technically able guitarists than Frank Zappa or Robert Fripp, but the music of, say, Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai leaves me cold. Could this be because Zappa and Fripp had other skills, not particularly involved in guitar technique, that they brought to bear on their guitar playing (harmonic awareness, note choices, etc., that they got from being composers and having a natural all-round musical knowledge and musicality)? Or do we in this case want to reach for the arty stuff to explain it: conceptual vision, emotional investment, or imagination?

Some painters are terrible at painting hands but great at other things. Can we only say they are great once they've finally managed to master hands?

It becomes apparent that craft, skill, and technique are not the same thing, or can at least encompass a range of different and overlapping kinds of abilities. One answer is that craft (and possibly technique) is the set of traditional techniques that are handed down by training, whereas skill seems to be something wider or more general.

I wouldn't want to say that art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination], because it seems simplistic and reductive, but it might be a way of looking at it. For instance, some conceptual artists have the second addend, and the first is applied by the employees of the artist. And what does this say about conceptual art?

I'd rather understand the chapter because I don't. I don't particularly like your little :snicker: comments that happen from time to time, often directed at me. Please elaborate and don't attempt to deflect. Speak to me plainly.

Hey ND, don't derail the discussion. Agent Smith just likes to get involved in every discussion even when he doesn't have anything to say. His comment was likely more playful than malicious, and I deleted it because it wasn't a good contribution.

Alright. Sorry for assuming otherwise, @Agent Smith. From my perspective it just looked fishy.

Alright. Sorry for assuming otherwise, Agent Smith. From my perspective it just looked fishy. — Noble Dust

A thousand apologies. — Ranjeet

I should've minded my own business. Lesson learned. Danke and au revoir monsieur.

Hey ND, don't derail the discussion. Agent Smith just likes to get involved in every discussion even when he doesn't have anything to say. His comment was likely more playful than malicious, and I deleted it because it wasn't a good contribution. — Jamal

Muchas gracias señor Jamal. G'day.

Don’t worry about it. Sometimes I get butt hurt too quickly, apologies.

Don’t worry about it. Sometimes I get butt hurt too quickly, apologies. — Noble Dust

:up:

I know people that love beautiful glassware, cabinetry, motorcycles, etc — Noble Dust

Many restaurants and homes have what I consider to be badly designed forks. I was in an Italian restaurant yesterday and ordered tagliatelle, but was shocked (shocked!) to see that my fork had short tines. Some might say that it was beautiful to look at, but if a tool is not fit for purpose, any beauty it might have is empty. Its eye-pleasing shape was superficial; for any tool, an important element in its beauty must be its functionality (and how it feels in the hand etc).

I sometimes stop to wonder why this is my favourite mug or t-shirt or sword.

I wouldn't want to say that art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination], because it seems simplistic and reductive, but it might be a way of looking at it. For instance, some conceptual artists have the second addend, and the first is applied by the employees of the artist. And what does this say about conceptual art? — Jamal

Answering myself here...

What it might say is that conceptual art is a mistaken or ill-conceived separation of the two, that it's the exemplar of a belief in the false equation, art = [craft, skill, and technique] + [vision, emotional investment, imagination]. And this belief could be the result of the inflated status of the artist as creator, which is an ecomonic and sociological phenomenon.

the inflated status of the artist as creator, which is an ecomonic and sociological phenomenon. — Jamal

What is an alternative role for the artist if she's not a creator?

What is an alternative role for the artist if she's not a creator? — Noble Dust

I didn't want to suggest that an artist is not, or should not be, a creator. Rather, I meant that artists might have been artificially elevated as practitioners of pure creativity, meaning something higher than a creativity tied to the physical aspects of making a work of art.

I don't understand.