I'm trying to suggest that skill and creativity cannot be separated, that this is what some conceptual artists have tried to do.

I'm trying to suggest that skill and creativity cannot be separated — Jamal

Ok, I think we're probably on the same page about this.

that this is what some conceptual artists have tried to do. — Jamal

Any names?

Any names? — Noble Dust

Damien Hirst. Now, I know he has changed over the years but some time around 10 or 15 years ago he was asked (I can't find it online so I'm going from memory here) if skill was important to art, and his answer was something like, "no, because otherwise you might as well be doing macramé", and I remember being irritated by this dismissive attitude to skill. This and the fact that many of his works were (are?) actually produced by his employees.

As I say, he may have changed. I do know, for instance, that he does or has done his own paintings.

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). — Jamal

I recall reading about a study which claims that people think, to some degree, that aesthetically pleasing tools work better, even though they may actually be inferior in function to ugly tools.

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. — Jamal

I wouldn’t call this separation “ill-conceived”, I would simply tend to regard the result as commercial art, or art produced with the intent of making money, promoting some cause, or whatever. The ‘conceptual artist’ in this case is the capitalist or boss and in this way does hold a higher status position, and reaps the lion-share of profits. It’s not just artistic concepts though, like any business it’s having access to resources that the talent lacks.

You're just craft snobs

I didn’t say anything about craft, did I?

I didn’t say anything about craft, did I? — praxis

On second look, no.

I wouldn’t call this separation “ill-conceived”, I would simply tend to regard the result as commercial art, or art produced with the intent of making money, promoting some cause, or whatever. The ‘conceptual artist’ in this case is the capitalist or boss and in this way does hold a higher status position, and reaps the lion-share of profits. It’s not just artistic concepts though, like any business it’s having access to resources that the talent lacks. — praxis

Yes, I agree. I suppose I meant rather that the separation is not the way it has to be.

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. — Noble Dust

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. — Jamal

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, at least broadly, but the Collingwood quote I put in the OP set me thinking. According to him, some of the greatest art ever made isn't art at all, or at least was not considered such by those who made it. Here's more from Collingwood:

If people have no word for a certain kind of thing, it is because they are not aware of it as a distinct kind. Admiring as we do the art of the ancient Greeks, we naturally suppose that they admired it in the same kind of spirit as ourselves. But we admire it as a kind of art, where the word ‘art’ carries with it all the subtle and elaborate implications of the modern European aesthetic consciousness. We can be perfectly certain that the Greeks did not admire it in any such way.

The bold is mine. So how does that change things. Perhaps it doesn't for you, but I think it at least puts some strain on Jamal's distinction between craft as work product and craft as skill.

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. — Noble Dust

The distinction you are making between literature and music as art or as craft don't make much sense to me. All music has rules. Maybe different types of music have different rules, but still... If it doesn't, I think it just becomes conceptual art, which to me is like the liar's sentence of art.

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. — Noble Dust

Sometime I'll tell you my aesthetic theory of Christmas tree ornaments.

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. — Jamal

I think that's right. That's why I included all three because I don't think any one addressed everything I wanted to question.

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. — Jamal

Yes, this is where I came in. My question is can you have good art without good skill, craft, technique. Or maybe which matters more.

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

I have a fairly intense reaction to some daily objects, e.g. those glasses I showed. I think they look beautiful. The pastel colors go well with the thinness of the glass. I love the way they feel in my hand and they way they feel when I lift them to my mouth. I love the way I can feel their weight and balance when I only look at them. Just writing about them here I can feel how the glass feels on my tongue as the cool lemonade goes in my mouth. I can taste the lemons. I love that they are easily breakable.

And then there's my New England Patriots sweatshirt which I love because my son gave it to me when he was 15.

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. — Jamal

Conceptual art can be fun and interesting. Some can even be moving and intellectually disorienting. But much, most, of it feels sterile to me. Lots of head but no heart.

You're just craft snobs — Tate

Whether or not that's true, I think we are getting at in important issue here.

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. — Jamal

I was thinking some more about this. This from Collingwood:

...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. — Collingwood, R. G.. The Principles of Art .

That way of seeing art makes sense to me. Although this is an over-simplification, perhaps the distinction we're trying to make is between the quality of the artist's effort to share the experience as opposed to the quality of the experience itself.

You're just craft snobs
— Tate

Whether or not that's true, I think we are getting at in important issue here. — T Clark

That was meant light heartedly. Where's the light hearted emoji?

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? — Jamal

So much to unpack isn't there? I am indifferent to most works by Van Gogh and Picasso - but I would say Picasso has the greater imaginative power and seems to be more inspired (more of that later) owing to his prodigious and seemingly ceaseless diversity. The term technical mastery is just another way to say talent, isn't it? But that word sticks out in today's culture. Is 'talent' just the application of great skill, or is it more inspired? I hold to a more unjustifiable and romantic view of the arts and think of some artists as inspired in some way - and I can't really account for or explain this except in the subjective experience of the work. So it's useless to others.

I find Zappa's stuff to be glib and empty cleverness, but I agree with you about Steve Vai who I see as the acme of soulless masturbatory technique. I often cite Vai as an example of how technique means little. I tend to reach for arty stuff in my appreciation of music - I like qualities: imagination, surprise, emotion, flaws, vitality, intimacy, intensity. All pretty vague and personal.

the acme of soulless masturbatory technique. — Tom Storm

:rofl:

Say , why don't you put your aesthetic musings to work and join in the short story contest as a commentator?

why don't you put your aesthetic musings to work and join in the short story contest as a commentator? — Noble Dust

I used to love short stories. When I was young, there were many books of science fiction stories that I liked. Somewhere along the line I stopped reading them. Not sure why, but I don't find them satisfying now.

@Noble Dust @Tom Storm

I really enjoy choral and some orchestral music. The interplay of all those voices, human and otherwise, can be engrossing and moving. When you have large groups of singers and musicians performing together, what is most important for the quality and enjoyability of the experience? Does the skill of individuals matter or is it only the way everyone plays in the group? Assuming there are no unskilled participants, does only the average quality matter? Can you hear the difference a single singer or musician makes? Or is it mostly in the direction by the conductor?

Big subject and I am no expert. Microphone placement and recording clarity can also make or break such a performance (if it is not live). If live, acoustics matter greatly. But generally the musical score and the professionalism of the artists does the bulk of the work. The conductor might make some artistic choices (tempo, interpretation) but this contribution can be overstated. We generally don't hear individuals in a group unless they are soloists or off key. In the classical repertoire skill matters greatly because the music is often highly technical.

Thanks.

@Noble Dust @Tom Storm @T Clark @Jamal

Just responding to everyone and no one in particular.

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality.

So, if you just make a wooden chair because wood is all you have available and size it so that it seats comfortably, and don’t add any decorative details, then it is a craft work. Now, that isn’t to say that others won’t find your chair aesthetically pleasing, but that isn’t what makes something an artwork.

It’s also possible to make a purely aesthetic chair that is not functional at all. This would be considered art, imo.

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed.

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality. — Pinprick

Wow. I knew I was missing something, and now I know what I was missing. The chords/rhythms/textures I choose when I make music are in fact very personal to me, without me even trying to make them so. They just are. We artists choose these things because they mean something to us; they take us beyond what they intrinsically are into a private world.

Interesting, very nice angle. Thank you. I'll mull over it. I think it is also interesting that 'hipsters' are so fond of banal but hand crafted, often impeccably made or carefully chosen items, from beer to boots. It's a quest for authenticity though more meaningful consumption and a kind of curation of ordinary life. But I take your point that art is lofty and craft seems quotidian.

But I take your point that art is lofty and craft seems quotidian. — Tom Storm

I don't necessarily interpret his point in that way. If art seems lofty it's only because of its emotional intensity. "Lofty" to you might mean "emotionally accurate" to me.

I was embroidering the edge of @Pinprick's comment and using the word 'lofty' with cavalier imprecision.

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed. — Pinprick

The way something is framed may influence how we see it of course, however, I think it’s possible to see anything aesthetically and we shouldn’t always rely on others, “thought leaders” or whatever, to direct our perception.

There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. — Pinprick

The chords/rhythms/textures I choose when I make music are in fact very personal to me, without me even trying to make them so. — Noble Dust

I'm stealing some images from "Beautiful Things," still one of my favorite threads after all these years.













This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but I think it shows your view is too narrow.

I think at the heart of the craft/skill/art discussion is meaning. There isn’t, or at least doesn’t seem to be, much personal meaning in craft items like chairs or pencils, whereas artworks typically are designed with personal touches. Artists intentionally choose certain colors, sounds, shapes, etc. beyond strictly what is needed for the item to be functional/useful. These choices metaphorically instill a part of the person into the item. They create meaning beyond the item’s functionality. — Pinprick

Which brings us back to the original question - how much does skill matter in art? If personal meaning is the standard by which art should be judged, then it doesn't seem like skill would matter much.

So, if you just make a wooden chair because wood is all you have available and size it so that it seats comfortably, and don’t add any decorative details, then it is a craft work. Now, that isn’t to say that others won’t find your chair aesthetically pleasing, but that isn’t what makes something an artwork. — Pinprick

There’s also the possibility to have a mixture of both; a functional chair that also contains embellishments meant to please the eye. This is more of a gray area, and is probably determined by how it is marketed or used/displayed. — Pinprick

This is a picture of furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright for one of his houses.



For me, this furniture is not "embellished."

I'll come back to this - I don't really disagree with what you're getting at, but I think you're oversimplifying.