What is Art?

[MrSynectic]

What is the difference between art and craft?
What is art?
What is craft?

If you think you can answer this question, please tell me what the difference is between fine art, and art, illustration and fine art painting.

This will be interesting....DM.

[Skat Bo]

Art and craft are synonyms. To go beyond that would insult common knowledge - you know when to call someone crafty as opposed to artsy.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Skat Bo
To go beyond that would insult common knowledge - you know when to call someone crafty as opposed to artsy.

I don't...please help!


Posted by MrSynectic:
What is art?

For quite a few years I've tried to maintain that "art" is an objective category; that there are certain physical properties that an item or action can have that make it art.

But in previous threads on the subject, DrMatt (I think) has stated (I think) that he considers beauty to be a subjective reaction, and that beauty and art and intertwined. (Sorry, DrMatt, for what I'm sure is a very fragmentary and perhaps inaccurate description of your views.)

This has altered my way of thinking about it. I certainly haven't gotten to a satisfactory definition in my own mind. It now seems to me, though, that "art" is defined by an audience's reaction to a medium.

This turns the discussion of "what is art" into a discussion of whether we necessarily find art beautiful, and the difference between the "aesthetic reaction" and reactions of arousal, desire, curiousity, comfort, excitement, unease, anxiety, etc.

I guess.

[DrMatt]

I think there's some intriguing stuff just starting to show up in neurology which may shed some light on the nature of aesthetic responses. But I don't understand enough neuroscience to report on it accurately, so I'll pass and hope somebody else will fill us in.

What I usually say here is that aesthetic responses are possible in all sorts of situations; art is just the effort to bias the circumstances in favor of one happening. This includes both efforts on the part of human creators and efforts on the part of audences--both audiences to human-created stimuli and to naturally-occuring stimuli.

I come to this rather subtle view having spent years among people who argue whether a certain thing "is beautiful" or not. Ultimately, I've concluded that while you can factor the creator out of the question, you cannot factor out the individual audience member. Bartok's Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion sure sounds musical to me, but it was just a lot of noise to my grandfather. You couldn't prove to him that it was anything else, on any grounds at all!

[Frostbite]

"Art is anything you can get away with."

I heard that somewhere, it strikes me that it's so true.

[roger]

Originally posted by Frostbite
"Art is anything you can get away with."

I heard that somewhere, it strikes me that it's so true.
Sorry, but I just can't allow you to get away with that statement!

:)

[SteveW]

Read Susan Sonntag's "On Photography."

She explains it pretty well.

[MrSynectic]

I have read David Hockney's On Art... and will have to agree that Photography is not an art...of couse this is from a Fine Art standpoint. I suppose I should re-read Alberti's On Painting, or On Sculpture, but I am looking for different perspectives from individuals outside of the art field to explain what art is, as I am composing my artist statement for an up comming show that deals with perspectives and the contemporary boundries in the art world. I need opinions... not book references, but thank you for offering the information.

[MrSynectic]

How can you rule out the spiritual signifigance in art... if perception is not yet explained. If our perception is based off a 17th c. model called the Optiks. (Newton.) The way we see has yet to be explained...Beauty becomes something that is a sub-catagory of perception. Perception is as individual as the thinker's mind. Scientific explaination of vision has yet to be discovered...I will throw in my support tomorrow.... I am tired and going to bed...Ill will make a point about how the mind helps to create what one sees....(getting ready for a show) Your thoughts are very helpful! DM

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by MrSynectic
How can you rule out the spiritual signifigance in art... if perception is not yet explained. If our perception is based off a 17th c. model called the Optiks. (Newton.) The way we see has yet to be explained...Beauty becomes something that is a sub-catagory of perception. Perception is as individual as the thinker's mind. Scientific explaination of vision has yet to be discovered...I will throw in my support tomorrow.... I am tired and going to bed...Ill will make a point about how the mind helps to create what one sees....(getting ready for a show) Your thoughts are very helpful! DM

Enormous vistas on how we see are opening up right today--including vistas on how we perceive. A neuroscience researcher a few weeks ago explained to me one of the findings of his group's research---let me see if I can recall this correctly. Basically, most of the nerve cells in the brain spend most of the time firing sorta at random--perhaps serving a function like a "keep-alive pulse" or
"ping" in machine networking. When a section is actually in use, it begins oscillating in regular waves of on-off firing. When you see a scene, many different sections of your brain come into use at once, and parts that are dealing with associated information pulse in phase with each other. For instance, when you behold a red oval and a blue square, four perceptual sections get very active--one which is active whenever you're seeing red, one for blue, one for ovals, and one for squares--and these may be inches apart from each other, but the red section and the oval section will be pulsing in phase with each other and out of phase with the blue and square sections, which pulse in phase with each other. Neuroscientists are right on the edge of glimpsing exactly how we model our world!

The more basic question of how light is transformed into the raw data is an area of collaboration between neurologists and opthalmologists.

Whenever people bring up "spirit", I remind myself to look it up, and it always refers to a supernatural immaterial force animating matter. In particular, the spirit is supposed to not require the body for its existence--it's supposed to be pure mind. That's sort of like the abstract notion of OS X running without a computer--sure, you could suppose that in a pure mathematical or Platonic sense OS X could exist without a computer, but it couldn't actually be DOING anything if it weren't encoded in the hard disk of a machine with a PPC chip and the rest of the required anatomy. There's so much yet to learn about the functioning of things which demonstrably exist--like humans--that I just don't see any need to spend time speculating on things which cannot be demonstrated to exist, like spirits.

Of course, if somebody claims to be able to make an unambiguous demonstration of something supernatural, let them. Part of the mission of the JREF is to see whether any such claims ever work out.

[MrSynectic]

I am familiar with the current finds in optical science, ....Sydney Perkowitz's- Empire of Light is a great book on explaining color theory... and establishes that color does not exist. (more or less.) Many studies have been attributed to color alone, but have yet to establish a concrete theory that explains perception. Psycological explainations of what a color field produces within a person does not explain why a room painted blue or red affects a persons strength, or hostilities... for a temporary period.
Here's the facts... Scientists get more things wrong than right. Isaac Newton...revered as a genius, ballparks most of his discoveries and conclusions under fifteen percent... Meaning Newton was incorrect over eighty-five percent of the time. However, our culture still is stuck in the 17th c. as far as perception is concerned, as the Optiks has not been challenged other than how many colors Isaac thought he saw. ( Isaac was an alchemist... and might have delved into the occult... such as Numerology having known about the perfect number nine...this could be important as Isaac reffers to light as a spectral like presence, ((coining spectrum.)) and was aware of colors he could not see...concluding that what he saw was seven colors.)
There are two colors that can not be seen with the naked eye... yet they are there... In speaking about spirtual signifigance... HOW ADVANCED ARE WE... to be able to say that spirits do not exist? If the eye can not see ultraviolet light...how do you think you can justify the existance/ non existance of a spirit? The operation of the brain in connection with optical receptors is a complete mystery...and there is a major problem with perception. There are holes at the back of a persons retna's that requires the brain/spirit/ whatever... to invent visual information for this deficiency. ALSO... to what extent does the cornea and lens refract the light into the eye? If refraction occurs in glass, water, and other transparent surfaces... how much does it refract into the eye... with all of these abnormalities, ( comparing eyes to a camera lens.) without taking into consideration ...things like stigmatisms, retnal degeneration, color blindness, ... establishing the non-existance of spirit seems kind of futile does it not?
The brain is another mystery, as you can perform a labotomy on a person, and that person can still function without a frontal lobe. People who have had steel rods through the head, gunshot wounds, ... can still function without major portions of their brains...so the question is, is the brain in charge of perception or is there something else we have yet to discover? Please don't forget that we are still making discoveries of new plants, insects and fish, ... and what about SARS the killer cold...Yes the advances in science and technologies... UNBELIEVABLE!!! We can invent Viagra, set a man on the moon, but have to fear the common cold, Diabetes , and Cancer...Yes I concur!!! We are making omnipotent leaps in the Sciences.

Speaking about Neurology, or Neuroscience... I can not argue with the great leaps in what has been discovered. I grasp the concept of the Synapse Gap, Dendrites,...and the reaction like eletrical charges that stimulate a thought process... and the blockages that occur with Timothy Leary's recepie for old number seven... However, Neuroscience does explain what art is, nor does it explain perception any different than a 17th c. model... because science and theories in science revolve around Newtons thought process of the 17th c. (Check out any of Newtons works and compare...it is all too obvious to the reader.) It is sad to think that science is what is accepted by most as the final word in most areas study. Knowing that most scientific things in history that have been accepted have been wrong... Most scientists of today average around four percent of accuracy in new finds, as science is not perfect. Drilling a hole in a persons head to relieve a headache... Particals entering the eye to reveal vision, or rays being emitted from the eye seems wrong, but was accepted during the times their concepts/practices existed. Phen Phen existed a couple of years ago... and was not the greatest discovery...

NOW, The question was, What is Art?... You were attempting to explain color theory and perception, so I am suspect to believe that your concept of the visual world is based off science, which is just as flawed as religious belief. I am guessing that you can only accept what you physically see from your perspective, but as I have pointed out a few small flaws with vision... it seems that one can not really trust what one sees.
Please enlighten me on where I can obtain the VISTAS on perception, as I currently keep up with this topic. I am a visual artist who studies the new found possibilities.

Art is something that has never been understood. Art is Science, and Science is Art... The processes of discovery in the Arts and Sciences are almost identical in theoretical aspects, However, Perception is an artist's field... and it will be an artist who changes perspective and not a neuroscientist...(just a prediction...based off of past fact.) (( Alberti, Da Vinci, Vermeer, Michalangelo, David Hockney... just a few examples.)

What is Art? ... It is a futile question that will never be answered, as this question has existed prior to Plato's ever so clever scale of merits in the Republic.

Art is everything.
Science is not perfect.

Be careful on what you deny in life, as the Painter who denied the accident, Died in an accident.

Thank you for your imput, you have an interesting angle on explaining the age old question from a scientific standpoint, However, I think ScatBo and Frostbite were more tactfull in approaching this question.

I enjoy a good debate, but spiritual issues might belong in another forum... I suppose one could challenge Randi for a Million, but it seems that would be a futile effort, as religion is as individual as the individual, and unfortunately so is perception... I do not know what the tests would be, but I would not be suprised if they are mesured by science, which of course I have already explained. If this is so, it is no different than a Salem witch trial... other than the ethics of testing has changed to the approval of American culture. It would be interesting to see a Native American take the test, but most Native Americans will have nothing to do with Caucasians. It is rumored that Native Americans converse with their ancestors that have passed away, on a daily basis...and they don't do it for money. If Randi could get someone in to take the test... what kind of equipment would be used to find a spirit... if such a thing has not been detected yet? If such a spiritual devise exists... then does it not seem likely that spirits exist? I suppose this sounds silly, but you have to stop and wonder about this testing process... and what kinds of devises prove or disprove this non physical test. The other side to this is people with so called powers... what makes a person think that if they had powers... they would need money anyway.... If I was psychic... I would concentrate on something like the Powerball Lottery when it reaches over one hundred-Million without having to deal with float / drown tests for chump change, and the exposure to public. However, it is my understanding that this test is a test to debunk those who have exposed themselves and work psychic whatever for profit in the first place.

Anyway, if you feel the need to shoot down anything above, I have left a few things left wide open for discussion, argument, debate, ... so feel free to show me where my perception is in error to you, and I will make an attempt to defend.
Thank you again for the response. DM.

[MrSynectic]

I Win!!!! even wit spellin and gramatcl errs!!! Cmon sombody else!!!

[MrSynectic]

Dear Hal,

Thank you for allowing me the time to gather the information for my thesis on perception. Although it was cut short, I still collected enough data to support a proven Theory of Interpretation already, but I needed to find out for myself. I was hoping to keep collecting data for at least another week, but you let the proverbial cat out of the bag. I could not have conducted my experiment by informing the test subjects before testing, as I would have compromised the testing by doing so. This is no different from how companies collate data to promote their future sales of their products, or the Radio Advertising and Broadcast companies study trends. Although the methods seem unorthodox, I am sure that you will agree that this could not be performed any different. If I had asked to use your forum as an experiment for what was needed, you would have rejected it based off the general theory.
I have utilized artistic license to interpret visual and theoretical interpretation. My finds are currently being compiled to my own theory of perception, which explains the psychological portion of my concept. I posed many questions in the site, such as What is Art, Randi Were you a Catholic, and also God Exists here’s proof. Many of the members of your site demand physical proof for such things such as Darwin’s Theory and his belief. The point of this confirms when someone’s belief is threatened, a defense posture is assumed by the defender to support his own belief. Desiring to confirm this… I pose the statement God exists Here is proof… with a theological statement that Darwin did not believe his own statement. Avoiding to supply information to people who claim to understand the Theory of Evolution , I promoted a feeling of having an upper hand in a debate that would make me appear less knowledgeable about this Theory. The sad fact in this belief is that Darwin did not believe his own theory. It is in the 25th volume of Darwin’s theory of which he quotes Niche in Latin, and expresses why this theory will not work ( It starts in the 23rd volume). He states that; “ The theory of evolution does not reflect my religious beliefs. I do not believe in evolution, but adaptation as I am a professed Episcopalian and believe devoutly in god.” ( Last sentence of the 25th chapter). Many believers in this theory do not understand that there are over six-thousand pages in the 25 chapters and 50 accompanying diaries. The individuals on this site have never read Darwin other than the Origin of Man… which is the most of what people who read this believe in this theory. Furthermore, It is not beneficial for me to produce this evidence to them as they seem to believe a theory that has not been proven what they believe they know to be true.

The string entitled Randi were you a Catholic was about protective nature in the general belief in people. One who answered the site is to be viewed as a person who reveres Randi as a sub deity or the final word. Randi… the supposed intellectual will not answer this if he is an intellectual… with others to feel the obligation to answer for him. Writing a mock letter to Randi creates an atmosphere of panic when the idea is suggested that a person can be incorrect…which is sort of the same as what one believes to be true, but geared more to challenging a so called intellectual… that most of his cronies follow like the twelve disciples of Jesus. This string was the most draining as there are individuals on your website who support their statements by unsupported theories in science. The reaction starts with hurling epithets and then providing poor attempts in supporting their own belief.

Without further elaboration of this portion of my thesis study… I still have to compile data in many other areas of perception. Most of the readers were good sports if they assumed that they understood what was happening… otherwise they held strong to their beliefs whatever they were. I no longer require the use of your site and find it to be demeaning to person with a person with a viewpoint or a new perception or theory. The only thing I suppose I can leave the forum users is a thank you and a question. How does one expect to grow into intellectuals if they hold onto concepts that change within a days time?


Please remove my profile from your site as I will no longer require the use of it.
DM

[DrMatt]

Ah, okay.
I just got around to checking this thread again. :eek: I think I already addressed the main question as best I know how--and the subsidiary questions as best I understand them. The accusation that most of science is "wrong" is rather funny. Most of everything is drek--science just is the business of methodically setting each mistake aside when it's discovered, and constantly pushing the boundaries of knowledge for the purpose of discovering mistakes in what is understood. The fact that most science later turns out to be in error is indicative of science doing what it does best: find the best possible approximations of truth.
Art is about beauty. Beauty can be found in many a well-told lie--e.g. in fiction. Beauty isn't a form of truth. Nor is truth a form of beauty--some facts, e.g. WW2, may be horrifically ugly.
Science came up in the context of the effort to understand what is beauty, why does it exist, etc. My take on this is that beauty is an experience within particular people--not something that is in artifacts per se, but sometimes in people's reactions to those artifacts. I don't think you can factor people out of beauty--nor out of art. People are plenty difficult to study--I see no reason to violate Occam's razor by supposing that we need to study spirits as well.
As for the long essays above: I'm not a neurologist, but it sure looks to me like something unusual happened to our former poster. :crazy:

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by DrMatt

As for the long essays above: I'm not a neurologist, but it sure looks to me like something unusual happened to our former poster. :crazy:

Once, a couple years ago, I was sitting next to some railroad tracks near my apartment, sketchbook in my lap. A man came walking along the tracks. He looked pretty normal, and asked to see what I was drawing.

Then he showed me a little portfolio he was carrying, full of his photos of Barbie dolls arranged in odd poses.

I asked him if he ever showed in galleries, and he proceeded to drift into a long rant about how he (and the world in general) was oppressed by the Jews, about how circumcision was a conspiracy to weaken non-Jews, about how he was being monitored by the Thought Police, etc. He went on and on, a genuine nut.

So there you go. It happens.

[kittynh]

ARt and Craft. It's a fuzzy line. I paint and draw, and that is accepted as ART. But I also do quilted wallhangings. I have one in the auction now, of a smilie face, that I would qualify as craft, but one I'm posting of skeletons and roses that would be art.

The general rule for qults though is, if you use a pattern that is craft. If you make up the pattern, that is art. If you make LOTS of the same quilt (no matter if you made up the pattern or not) that's craft. If you sell the pattern you made up to be massed produced by others, that's craft. Hey, I didn't make up these rules!

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by kittynh
ARt and Craft. It's a fuzzy line. I paint and draw, and that is accepted as ART. But I also do quilted wallhangings. I have one in the auction now, of a smilie face, that I would qualify as craft, but one I'm posting of skeletons and roses that would be art.

The general rule for qults though is, if you use a pattern that is craft. If you make up the pattern, that is art. If you make LOTS of the same quilt (no matter if you made up the pattern or not) that's craft. If you sell the pattern you made up to be massed produced by others, that's craft. Hey, I didn't make up these rules!

Hmmm. In music you sometimes hear people say "in order to make art you have to really know your craft", and then others rush in to disagree, pointing out various "naifs" who supposedly revolutionized music by not "knowing their craft", and then historians who point out in turn that yes they did know their craft, well enough to methodically do everything "wrong", rather than accidentally once in a while. The most common example cited is Debussy, who is credited with inventing a new style by ignoring the "rules" of the old style--but who won prizes from the Paris Conservatoire for his mastery of the old style before any of this happened...
Hmm

[Sundog]

Originally posted by DrMatt


Hmmm. In music you sometimes hear people say "in order to make art you have to really know your craft", and then others rush in to disagree, pointing out various "naifs" who supposedly revolutionized music by not "knowing their craft", and then historians who point out in turn that yes they did know their craft, well enough to methodically do everything "wrong", rather than accidentally once in a while. The most common example cited is Debussy, who is credited with inventing a new style by ignoring the "rules" of the old style--but who won prizes from the Paris Conservatoire for his mastery of the old style before any of this happened...
Hmm

Craft is knowing so automatically how to move your hands on your instrument to produce certain sounds that you don't even think about it. Art is using this ability to make music. :)

[c4ts]

Craft art is an art. Art is a craft. There you go.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by c4ts
Craft art is an art. Art is a craft. There you go.

Kraft Macaroni And Cheese is okay.

Etymologically, both "art" and "craft" come from words meaning "ability"--the former from Romance languages, the latter from Germanic. In modern ASL, "Skill" and "Ability" are the same sign--but it's a strange abstract motion for which I haven't found an etymology (it might be French, Kentish, Navajo, or unique in origin--dunno). However, a separate sign for "art" is clearly derived from mime of painting, using the back of the small finger as the brush to distinguish it from "research" (index finger), "reading" (index and middle fingers), and "surgery" (thumb).

[DrMatt]

I just stumbled on this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/sundayarts/A58792-2001Jul13.html

hmm

[kittynh]

well, someone said, "Art is anything that takes you out of reality" but I don't know who!!!

My work that is more "art" is a different crowd than the "craft" crowd. artists are almost expected to drink and suffer. A good craftsman is expected to be disciplined and dedicated.

[Rayn]

I've always thought that any attempt to "actualize" your subjective experience and express this through a medium. Whether this be in carving a piece of furniture, painting, writing literature, or making small crosses out of macaroni and glitter, they are art if it represents the creator.

Maybe I'm deluded though. I like to think that I make music that is "art," but I'm sure many people would disagree with me. Many, many, many people.

[kittynh]

Rayn, you have a CD of your work (art!) ?

Just looking out for next years JREF auction!

[Rayn]

kitty,

Not really, I have some small pieces that I've worked on for a while, but I'm composing some new numbers. If I finish them in time, I suppose I could "auction" them, but I'm new here and don't really know what that means.

So ... umm ... what does that mean? (if it violates intellectual property rights ... I mean it may not be good music, but it is MY music)

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Rayn
kitty,

Not really, I have some small pieces that I've worked on for a while, but I'm composing some new numbers. If I finish them in time, I suppose I could "auction" them, but I'm new here and don't really know what that means.

So ... umm ... what does that mean? (if it violates intellectual property rights ... I mean it may not be good music, but it is MY music)

Well, I donated a CD of my compositions to the auction and it went okay, without violating any IP.

The trick to making good music is to just keep making music and refining your criteria and improving your audacity and confidence until it becomes good. The trick to making great music is to not quit when it gets good. End of free lesson. :cool:

[Rayn]

The trick to making good music is to just keep making music and refining your criteria and improving your audacity and confidence until it becomes good. The trick to making great music is to not quit when it gets good. End of free lesson. :cool:

Heh, thanks for the "lesson" Matt. I never said I didn't think my own music was good, just others didn't. Which obviously points to the fact that they are tone-deaf and/or aesthetically challenged. :p