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. — praxis

I agree. I think in these gray areas how an item should be judged should be determined by the creator. They more than likely had an idea/vision for what purpose the item should primarily serve; functionality or aesthetics.

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

I’m not sure what these images are supposed to demonstrate. I can see how beauty can be found in them, but that alone doesn’t make it art.

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

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? It could be that skill is the ability for the artist/craftsman to match their ideal concept of what the items purpose is. If the item is intended to be functional, then the final product should be functional and can be judged on qualities like durability or comfort or whatever. If the item is intended to be aesthetically pleasing, then it should be judged on qualities like creativity, emotional impact, etc.

So, a skilled craftsman is someone who makes very functional items, and a skilled artist is someone who makes very meaningful items.

And if that’s the case, then skill matters a lot. If I’m trying to make a song sound angry, but it ends up sounding happy then I’m not very skilled at making angry songs. And I think that would come across in the music. I think there’s a sort of inauthenticity that would be felt.

I don't really disagree with what you're getting at, but I think you're oversimplifying. — T Clark

Yeah, I think one thing this theory doesn’t account for is spontaneity/improvisation. Performance arts like freestyle interpretative dance don’t really fit.

I’d say context matters too. For instance, consider Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner. If you were to hear it without having the background context of Vietnam and the counterculture, then all the, ahem “wrong notes” just seem like mistakes instead of a statement about Vietnam and America. A lot of the meaning gets lost.

I’m not sure what these images are supposed to demonstrate. I can see how beauty can be found in them, but that alone doesn’t make it art. — Pinprick

You wrote:

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

To say the examples I showed, which you call craft, don't have much personal meaning seems clearly wrong to me.

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? It could be that skill is the ability for the artist/craftsman to match their ideal concept of what the items purpose is. If the item is intended to be functional, then the final product should be functional and can be judged on qualities like durability or comfort or whatever. If the item is intended to be aesthetically pleasing, then it should be judged on qualities like creativity, emotional impact, etc. — Pinprick

Clearly the examples I showed are intended to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing.

So, a skilled craftsman is someone who makes very functional items, and a skilled artist is someone who makes very meaningful items. — Pinprick

Again, I think that's an oversimplification.

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? It could be that skill is the ability for the artist/craftsman to match their ideal concept of what the items purpose is. — Pinprick

I generally think 'skill' refers to a core competency in a craft or creative process, which can pretty much be measured. In the case of painting, draftsmanship would be a skill. In the case of guitar, mastery of the instrument would be a skill and you could break that down into micro skills, such as strumming and finger picking. All this is also known as technique. But these are words that are rarely used in any strictly codified sense and don't have precision.

So, a skilled craftsman is someone who makes very functional items, and a skilled artist is someone who makes very meaningful items. — Pinprick

For my taste this is getting too instrumental and narrow. Skill generally refers to expertise in an activity undertaken. We can choose that activity at random and then measure a person's skill in achieve it. For instance, some people are skilled at not taking responsibility. Some people are skilled at marketing their art, but are not great artists. When we say an artist is skilled, we can apply this word to a wide criterion of value. Are they skilled in technique? (Goya) Are they skilled in shocking their audience? (Damien Hirst) Are they skilled in publicity. (Jeff Koons) Are they skilled in most areas? (Picasso)

A skilled craftsman for me would be someone who makes beautiful craft items. These are sometimes not as useful as less beautiful objects. I have a fantastic, hand crafted leather carry bag that sucks as a bag, but is an exceptional testament to the maker's craft and shows off every skill going. My father, a practical man, would have said that since it doesn't work as a bag very well, the craftsman failed. This depends upon what you chose to privilege as the criterion of value. Of course the ultimate skills would produce a bag that was usable and beautiful.

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. — T Clark

But isn't Collingwood saying that we admire a work product as art precisely because we are so far removed from the practical use of the object?

In any case, I think it's wrong to break it down in the way that @Pinprick has done. As you've shown with your examples, and as I mentioned in passing myself, it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. This distinction between function and prettiness is, to me, obviously a fruitless way of looking at it.

My question is can you have good art without good skill, craft, technique. Or maybe which matters more. — T Clark

I think maybe you sort of can, when the originality or beauty of a work outweighs the techincal flaws. I'd put this into two categories, (a) works by great artists who were nevertheless technically bad in some ways, and (b) accidentally good or interesting art made by people who are entirely unskilled and talentless.

(a) Don Quixote is full of mistakes, inconsistencies, continuity errors, boring bits, and yet it's been massively influential and loved by millions. Similarly, Henri Rousseau was a self-taught painter, clearly lacking in technical training, but was quickly considered a great and original artist by others in the art world. And his paintings are great. Crucially though, there is some kind of skill, craft, and technique going on here, just different.

(b) Outsider music is not always made by unskilled people, but the Shaggs surely is. The girls were pretty much forced to do it by their father. But the thing about this sort of thing is that, precisely because there is no conventional skill on show, it can sound refreshing, sonically interesting and arresting, etc., and it can be influential, meaning that it has a place in the world of art.

The question raised by (a) is what makes these great artists great, if it's not total technical competence? I wouldn't say it's meaning, though I wouldn't rule that out. Off the top of my head I think there can be great artistry in following a path of one's own, because doing so can produce unconventional, fascinating, and beautiful things--things that would not be the same if the artist possessed an all-round competence. So I think it comes down to a single-minded creativity and confidence in certain, sometimes narrow, directions.

If we discount (b) for the moment, maybe the proper answer is no, you can't have good art without some kind of technique, craft, or skill.

Or maybe put it like this: technique or craft is almost always required, but not necessarily the technique and craft that is traditionally handed down in formal training; certain individuals invent their own technique because they don't know any better. I just thought of another example: Ornette Coleman, the free jazz saxophonist, learned to play based on a total misconception of the notes he was playing, and his music is brilliant no doubt partly because of this:

When he learned to play the saxophone — at first using an alto saxophone his mother gave him when he was around 14 — he had not yet understood that, because of transposition between instruments, a C in the piano’s “concert key” was an A on his instrument. When he learned the truth, he said, he developed a lifelong suspicion of the rules of Western harmony and musical notation.

In essence, Mr. Coleman believed that all people had their own tonal centers. He often used the word “unison” — though not always in its more common musical-theory sense — to describe a group of people playing together harmoniously, even if in different keys.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/arts/music/ornette-coleman-jazz-saxophonist-dies-at-85-obituary.html



The way he freely shifts key in the solo starting at 1:46 is likely not something he'd have come up with if his training had gone more smoothly.

But isn't Collingwood saying that we admire a work product as art precisely because we are so far removed from the practical use of the object? — Jamal

I don't think that's what he's saying. To be clear, Collingwood isn't denying that there is a difference between art and craft. He's just saying that it isn't a distinction that was made before the 1600s. He says that Da Vinci and Michelangelo considered themselves craftsmen. They did not consider what they did art in the sense we do today. We've just sprayed on an aesthetic coating to bring what they did in line with how we see things now.

it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. — Jamal

Agreed.

I think maybe you sort of can, when the originality or beauty of a work outweighs the techincal flaws. I'd put this into two categories, (a) works by great artists who were nevertheless technically bad in some ways, and (b) accidentally good or interesting art made by people who are entirely unskilled and talentless. — Jamal

I don't think this covers Hampton's "The Throne of the Third Heaven of the Nations’ Millennium General Assembly."

maybe the proper answer is no, you can't have good art without some kind of technique, craft, or skill. — Jamal

I'm still not sure where I come down on this.

To say the examples I showed, which you call craft, don't have much personal meaning seems clearly wrong to me. — T Clark

Ah, I see what you meant now. I’m not sure how many of the images I’d call craft. It would entirely depend on whoever created them.

Clearly the examples I showed are intended to be both functional and aesthetically pleasing. — T Clark

Sure. That’s probably the vast majority of anything ever created. But the point is that the creator likely focused most on one or the other. For example, would the architect that created the bridge have sacrificed the bridge’s functionality for the sake of its beauty?

For my taste this is getting too instrumental and narrow. Skill generally refers to expertise in an activity undertaken. — Tom Storm

I get it, but my issue is how subjective skill/expertise is. It almost becomes a useless term because it’s impossible to judge across genres of a particular medium like painting. What counts as skill in Cubism is very different than what counts as skill in Realism. To me the common thread connecting all art across mediums or genres is meaning. All art means something above and beyond any functionality the item may possess.

A skilled craftsman for me would be someone who makes beautiful craft items. These are sometimes not as useful as less beautiful objects. I have a fantastic, hand crafted leather carry bag that sucks as a bag, but is an exceptional testament to the maker's craft and shows off every skill going. My father, a practical man, would have said that since it doesn't work as a bag very well, the craftsman failed. This depends upon what you chose to privilege as the criterion of value. Of course the ultimate skills would produce a bag that was usable and beautiful. — Tom Storm

Yeah, it’s the same with me. I happen to like knives, swords, axes, etc. Some I have are strictly for aesthetic purposes and would fall apart in any sort of combat situation, and others would probably hold up ok. I value each type, but for different reasons, and I consider the makers of each type to be skilled, just in different areas. But I also consider the functional ones to be something closer to a tool than art/decorative, and vice versa. The gray area cases where both functionality and beauty are combined pretty equally are too difficult to determine as an observer without knowing how the creator intended them to be viewed.

In any case, I think it's wrong to break it down in the way that Pinprick has done. As you've shown with your examples, and as I mentioned in passing myself, it's often precisely the perfect functionality of an object that makes it aesthetically pleasing. — Jamal

But just because something is aesthetically pleasing doesn’t mean it’s art. Sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, but that doesn’t mean nature is an artist. The intention of the creator matters.

That’s probably the vast majority of anything ever created. But the point is that the creator likely focused most on one or the other. For example, would the architect that created the bridge have sacrificed the bridge’s functionality for the sake of its beauty? — Pinprick

We've probably taken this as far as we're going to.

What counts as skill in Cubism is very different than what counts as skill in Realism. To me the common thread connecting all art across mediums or genres is meaning — Pinprick

I think this is reasonable. Personally I would take a different approach. Cubism skill can be judged in relation to Cubism and skills in Realism in relation to Realism. So there's that. Also, if you think skill is subjective, I would venture that what counts as meaning is probably even more subjective. :wink:

@Pinprick

I would throw another wrench in here and amend the term "meaning" in this context to "intention". The intention of cubism is different than the intention of realism, so the perennial question of aesthetic evaluation is to what extent a cubist has executed their intention, and to what extent a realist has done so. So rather than the problem of the subjectivity of meaning, we have the subjectivity of skill in relation to specific intention.

:up:

Off the top of my head I think there can be great artistry in following a path of one's own, because doing so can produce unconventional, fascinating, and beautiful things — Jamal

Sorry, I was out of the loop on this thread so I'm just sort of jumping in on random points. I agree with this, and I think it's essentially the same point I was making by saying that creativity is a skill. Without getting too woo, when a person is truly inspired to create art, they will do it regardless of their environment, with or without training. Why this is the case I certainly don't know. I say this from experience as an observer of peers and as an artist. I guess I have skin in the game, since I received some formal musical training, but none in composition, which is what I do primarily.

By the way, Ornette's harsh tone has always been a stumbling block for me, but I didn't know about his background, so that illuminating. Always ready to give anyone another shot.

By the way, Ornette's harsh tone has always been a stumbling block for me — Noble Dust

He certainly made the most of the tone of the Grafton plastic sax, and I can understand why people dislike it. I really hated it myself when I first heard his music (hated everything about it actually), but he won me over in the end.

Well, what is skill? Has anyone defined that term yet? — Pinprick

I would define it as a highly developed ability for craftmanship - to apply particular techniques with more or less virtuosity. It is something conditioned and developed through practice, in contrast to talent, which is the raw/natural ability to apply particular techniques that don't involve any intentional craftmanship.

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists.

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists. — Merkwurdichliebe

:fire:

Probably the thrust of most my posts in Phil of Art threads.

The most lucrative industry for artists is the entertainment industry, mainly video games and movies. The most elite art schools in the world are all geared towards producing artists for this industry. They are all based in classical training, which has its main emphasis in realism and design. Only the most skilled artists in the world make it through this program.

Regarding varying genres and styles, there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style), so we do indeed have a criterion upon which we can judge genres against each other. Of course, realism, in comparison to other genres, holds the potential to include the greatest variety of design techniques in a single work, which is why I believe it is the genre requiring the greatest skill.

"Lucrative" and "elite" are certainly the right buzzwords, but they say nothing about what I'm provisionally, at the moment, referring to as "intention"; see above. There are many lucrative fields and many elite cliques.

there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style) — Merkwurdichliebe

What are concrete examples?

Is there an analog in non-representational art forms like music?

"Lucrative" and "elite" are certainly the right buzzwords, but they say nothing about what I'm provisionally, at the moment, referring to as "intention"; see above. — Noble Dust

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. It is much easier for a nonartist to judge the intention of a realist work, versus a cubist work. This is becuase the margin of error in realism is much smaller, so mistakes are much more obvious in realism. To avoid mistakes in realism then requires a greater skillset.

there are universal design principles that can be found as a common thread in all great works of art (regardless of genre or style) — Merkwurdichliebe


What are concrete examples? — Noble Dust

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance.

Is there an analog in non-representational art forms like music?

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely.

Intention is directly related to skill level in my opinion. It is much easier for a nonartist to judge the intention of a realist work, versus a cubist work. This is becuase the margin of error in realism is much smaller, so mistakes are much more obvious in realism. To avoid mistakes in realism then requires a greater skillset. — Merkwurdichliebe

One problem here is that realism does in fact require the existence of "mistakes", whereas cubism (and countless other art forms across mediums) do not. Again, this ties in to my concept of intention; there are no rules in art, except, arguably in realism. So this posits a problem for realism inherently. Intention is not tied to anything in particular except within realism. That's its weakness. Questions of what does or does not require more skill as you're implicitly defining it here don't even factor in within my provisional concept as outlined. Hope I'm making sense and not being a dick.

Some are focal points, rhythm, readability, proportion and balance. — Noble Dust

And what are concrete examples of how these principles are found in all great works of art?

I do not have an adequate music vocabulary, but absolutely. — Merkwurdichliebe

I do, and I don't see it. Didn't mean it as a "gotcha", but was wondering.

Skill is, bottom line, an attribute of experts - those who've been in the business long enough to know the ins and outs of a craft/technique. Part of skill is the adaptation of body and mind to a technique and also vice versa. So, you work as though you're made for it and, conversely, as if it were made for you. The technique & tools meshes with your quirks and you do the same in return. What I mean to say is be one with the ball in a manner of speaking until no one can tell where the technique & tools end and you begin - samadhi i.e. indivisible union of a person with, sensu amplo, his trade.

For artists, one of the primary goals is to be recognized for their skill by their artistic peers. I would venture to say that art is something quite different for the artist than it is for nonartists.
— Merkwurdichliebe

:fire:

Probably the thrust of most my posts in Phil of Art threads. — Noble Dust

No question - I guess I would have thought that was a given - just as philosophy is quite different to the philosopher than it is for nonphilosophers. And symphonic music something quite different for the instrumentalist than it is for nonmusicians, etc.

Maybe it is a given and I'm just wasting my breath, but I doubt it. Not even sure my contributions are useful for this crowd, but I'm not mad about it either way.

Of course, realism, in comparison to other genres, holds the potential to include the greatest variety of design techniques in a single work, which is why I believe it is the genre requiring the greatest skill. — Merkwurdichliebe

You may be right. Although the fact remains for me that some highly skilled work comes off as 'dead'. Like the aforementioned Steve Vai's masturbatory guitar technique. I am not always drawn to skill as such as a criterion of value in art, but I do appreciate it in craftworks.

Maybe it is a given and I'm just wasting my breath, but I doubt it. Not even sure my contributions are useful for this crowd, — Noble Dust

Not at all, I enjoy your observations. We're just sifting through the strands of thought and experience here.

:pray:

Sifting is the proper word, I think. Excellent.

What I mean to say is be one with the ball in a manner of speaking until no one can tell where the technique & tools end and you begin - samadhi i.e. indivisible union of a person with, sensu amplo, his trade. — Agent Smith

I like this, but how does it apply to art?

I like this, but how does it apply to art? — Noble Dust

Art is just another thing we do!

Hmmm, I disagree. I don't count art as being on the same level of other things we do, assuming that includes basically everything, given the triteness of your response. Maybe it's similar to other things, I don't know (provisionally), but it's not just "another activity" in my mind.

Hmmm, I disagree. I don't count art as being on the same level of other things we do, assuming that includes basically everything, given the triteness of your response. Maybe it's similar to other things, I don't know (provisionally), but it's not just "another activity" in my mind. — Noble Dust

I'm talking about art proper, stuff like painting, sculpting, etc., and not art in the sense found in the art of deduction or the art of experiment, etc.

Ok, so art proper is "just another thing we do" right?