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.

If only I had been that clever.

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.

:yikes: Thank you.

:rofl:

I'm glad we are providing you with some love in this often harsh world,,,or is it merely entertainment? — Janus

Both? I feel familial love for the both of you, but I can't help but grab the metaphorical popcorn anytime I see the giants collide. :sweat:

They all looked like book covers for dystopian science fiction novels. — T Clark

Haha, a strange interpretation. His paintings make me feel very calm and generally ok. I had the good fortune of meeting him and seeing some of his work in person, years ago. i was running slides for him at a conference. When I handed him the remote, he asked "which button turns back time?" :lol:

I love the eternal @Janus @Wayfarer saga.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

but sometimes really accomplished performers can sound slightly soulless. — Tom Storm

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.

perhaps it is emotion. — Tom Storm

Perhaps!?

For me, however, great writing almost always seems like craft — Tom Storm

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

but they have something more - what is it? Buggered if I know — Tom Storm

You're feeling feelings Tommy boy! Embrace it!

Have you even visited America?

I think so.

what they called craft - sculpture — Bitter Crank

Woah you just set off a bomb in my brain. Something for another thread.

@Bitter Crank

As an artist (sorry, I feel like such an asshole when I say that sort of thing), I do a lot of examination of life (I joined this philosophy forum after all), but yes, when I'm creating a work, I'm not examining. I think that's an important distinction. The unexamined life may not be worth dancing about, but that doesn't mean the dancer isn't examining first and then dancing intuitively.

What are your thoughts on the Woody Guthrie video? — Clarky

I like that song, but I don't feel any need to listen to it for my own pleasure (I listened to it just now of course). It's a culturally significant song. As a younger person it has more historical interest to me than anything. I think he was skilled, but more in a creative way. He was also in the right place at the right time, which is a significant part of success in art.

How much does vision and creativity make up for lack of technical skill — Clarky

I don't know how to quantify how much. I like the simplicity of Coldplay:



Ultimately I think vision and creativity are more important because they tend to be what drives the emotional impact of a work, which is ultimately what art does; communicates things emotionally and intuitively in ways that nothing else can. But of course a base level of skill is still required; Woody can play guitar decently. Chris Martin has a nice singing voice. Their drummer can play the drums.

Thinking out loud here (sorry for the spam), I think what's missing is that creativity itself is a skill. Skill isn't just technical competence; the ability to look at the world from a specific viewpoint in order to bring something creatively unique into existence is absolutely a skill; so whether the result is something complex or simple isn't important.

Anyway, the point I was going to make before I went on a rant is that I think even art that appears to not require much skill requires more than you think. Simplicity is often harder to pull off than complexity. Simplicity requires a different skill set.

is there art you would call good for which not much skill is needed? — Clarky

I don't think so. Hampton's "Throne" looks very skillfully made to me (I was unaware of it by the way, thanks for turning me on to it). I get frustrated by the notion that it's possible to make good art without a lot of skill; why don't we apply this idea to other fields? Can a carpenter be good without much skill? Can an engineer be good without much skill? An electrical engineer maybe?

I think people apply this fantasy to art because they don't understand art or the creative process. If they did, they wouldn't make the mistake. People like myself have put thousands of hours of work into what we do; years and years of work. This week alone I've spent probably around 12 hours total notating a solo piano piece that's five minutes long. I'm not done yet and this is just the first draft. I'll probably spend at least 5 hours fine tuning it and redoing parts of it. I'm not even sure how readable it is; I plan on sending it to my brother for feedback, and my guess is he's going to say it needs work. This is just the musical notation, not a performance of the piece. Anyway, I hope you get the idea of my point here.

I want to talk about skill, craft, technique — Clarky

As an artist, skill, craft and technique are crucial to what I do. Skill helps me realize what I want to create. Craft is a bit of a vague word to me, but technique is an aspect of skill. They're all very important. This is true across mediums and skill levels; to say that these things are important in making good art doesn't mean that only artists with an advanced level of knowledge and experience are good.

I've given up too. Thanks for the beautiful talking points. Always open to more wisdom, selfishly.

Don't tag me, tag @Streetlight and @Isaac

All I want is for @Streetlight and @Isaac to enter the short story contest.

Do you actually have anything to say about worker's rights in the EU? Or Ukraine — Isaac

I didn't comment here for that reason, no. Read my comments in order and you might get a sense.

You tell me.

No idea what that's about, I'm on a different plane, mate. Take a deep breath.

No idea what that's about, I'm on a different plane, mate. Take a deep breath.

How's Australia doing?

Keep up the good fight, then. Just be sure to not cave to their tactics. Fight hatred with love, shame with jokes, rhetoric with imagination.

Ah, I see. The game of who is actually genuine. Note that Street isn't playing the same game as you.

Why does anyone keep engaging with @Streetlight? Are you all masochists? Take a load off.

I feel betrayed

Wtf

Yes I did mention that book. — Wayfarer

Any other recs in that vein?

Almost through A History of God: The 4,000 Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity & Islam by Karen Armstrong. Incredible. I feel like this was a @Wayfarer rec? Thanks if so. The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism is next.

Also @Jamal and @Clarky, I'm hung up at about 100 pages into Titus Groan. I have mixed feelings.

Silence and Beauty, Makoto Fujimura — 180 Proof

Interesting choice, he was a big influence on me as an artist back in my Christian daze. I still respect him, and his art is incredible.

A special version; thanks.

Do Marxists still exist?