Wrestling with the concept of "Straight" Photography

i grew up in a small town close to Letchworth, Herts, UK where there are so many examples of the Arts & Crafts movement which has clearly influenced my outlook on the art/craft debate.

 

Arts and Crafts movement - Wikipedia

i think craft is beautiful but art is something more.

Tim, you do realize this is an English Language forum, don't you? => :)

 

If you aren't familiar with the English words fritter and noodling, I have to say I talk American. ;)

Divided by a common language

Art and craft are immutably interdependent. One cannot have (the highest expressions of) art without craft. Craft, devoid of art, is meaningless. One commonality among all great artists is that they have mastered their craft, thereby allowing them to realize the highest potential of their artistic vision. Neither like Yin and Yang (which are opposites), nor on a continuum where you can reach 99.99% of one with only 0.01% of the other, but more like draft animals equally yoked. The greater the capacity of both, the greater the potential outcome. Imbalance between them becomes quickly obvious, with clear impact on the both craft and art.

Art and craft are immutably interdependent. One cannot have (the highest expressions of) art without craft. Craft, devoid of art, is meaningless. One commonality among all great artists is that they have mastered their craft, thereby allowing them to realize the highest potential of their artistic vision. Neither like Yin and Yang (which are opposites), nor on a continuum where you can reach 99.99% of one with only 0.01% of the other, but more like draft animals equally yoked. The greater the capacity of both, the greater the potential outcome. Imbalance between them becomes quickly obvious, with clear impact on the both craft and art.

 

David, have you tried finger painting? Not much craft involved.

 

And speaking of draft animals elephants have done better paintings than some adults with their work hanging in a museum. The problem is one has to define what is considered art, which is somewhat an art if not the pinnacle of audacity.

...finger painting? Not much craft involved.

And, in most cases, not an enormous degree of artistic development, either. If a Picasso were to finger paint, I daresay he would do so with a level of craft (whatever that might be) to match his artistic intent. Your example fits my position very well. Thank you!

One commonality among all great artists is that they have mastered their craft, thereby allowing them to realize the highest potential of their artistic vision.

 

 

If, by that, you mean the craft of their materials, I would agree. But if by that you mean the craft of what they are making (regardless of material), I would not agree. A craftsman makes "a" pot or "a" quilt or "a" house and they do it may very, very well. Many photographers make "a" photograph because that's what they've learned that (good) photographs look like. An artist doesn't make "a" anything.

 

For example (and there are others), Chuck Close, who was/is a very gifted craftsman, said, somewhere back at the start of his career, that he could make what looked like "art" all day long, but he didn't want to do that. He wanted to make art. It wouldn't look like "art" because neither he nor anybody else had ever seen what he might do. He deliberately abandoned the craft of making "art." There's no craft for that level of art (above and beyond the craft of materials, which Close revels in and is a thorough master of). He doesn't want to make "a" anything.

 

There is craft for making things that look like "art." There is no craft for making art.

 

I'm kind of reminded of St. Thomas, who was a master craftsman (carpenter) in India, and was given a very large sum of money to build a house for a king. Time went by and the king came to see his new house but there was no house. Thomas had given all the money away to the poor and needy. Naturally, the king was very unhappy with what his craftsman had done. Thomas told the king that he had built him a palace in heaven (which conveniently is proven by a dead man who goes and sees it and is allowed to return to life to testify for Thomas). Thomas was an artist, don't you think?

everything in moderation, including moderation

 

some playwright or other.

it's good to express yourself, sometimes argumentatively, about things you are passionate about.

There's plenty of passionate territory between moderation and extremism.

 

__________________________________________________________

 

Artists marry craft and art. Debaters have a tougher time of it.

Art and craft are immutably interdependent. One cannot have (the highest expressions of) art without craft. ... Imbalance between them becomes quickly obvious, with clear impact on the both craft and art.

 

I agree on the interdependence, but not so much on the equality of art and craft. Craft, for me, is a tool, just like the camera ans the lends are tools. This is why art teachers of all disciplines focus so much on the craft aspect of their art, so the students learn the tools necessary to then make their artistic visions a reality. On the other hand focusing on the craft for the sake of the craft yields an end product that is typically devoid of artistic vision.

There's plenty of passionate territory between moderation and extremism

thankfully

Oh, do please define the line that separates art from craft! Just after that, I have another question --How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

A Sheridan carved saddle, a cuff from Thomas Jim, an engraved and inlaid Rigby rifle all are both.

Thomas was an artist, don't you think?

 

no, he was a humanitarian who wanted to make the world "a" better place which contradicts your:

 

An artist doesn't make "a" anything.

 

statement, non?

all are both.

 

 

Not at the same time. It's either a urinal or it's a fountain. It's never a urinal fountain.

Not at the same time. It's either a urinal or it's a fountain. It's never a urinal fountain.

i do wish julie would do some research before posting.

 

Fountain (Duchamp) - Wikipedia

Sorry, Julie, I never referenced a urinal though your response is clearly a crock.

You feel that it's good craftsmanship to make a saddle or rifle that is less functional, less useful due to the addition to stuff not necessary to its function? And/or to make it so valuable that nobody will want to get it dirty? That's poor craftsmanship, IMO. Good salesmanship, yes. They know their market.

That a saddle or rifle is beautiful makes it no less functional. Yet again a fallacy, and you haven't answered either question I posed.

That a saddle or rifle is beautiful makes it no less functional.

 

 

True. The perfect rifle or saddle will have nothing extra on it; nothing but what makes it perfectly functional. Decoration is just excess baggage used to sell to those who like shiny things. Which is just fine, but it's not "craftsmanship" it's to move the goods.

Edited July 13, 2017 by Julie H

No, Juliel, the decision about what is excess baggage and what is not is up to the owner. Fine engraved firearms are nearly always "one off" and extremely expensive, certainly not a marketing tool that any reasonable company could afford to use. Saddles less expensive, but the same. Yet again, duck bob and weave -- answer the question.

Not a great view, but a competitor's Sheridan Style saddle at a small town Rodeo Fourth of July.

Firearms and knives can be made into art without adding extra baggage. The curves, texture, polish, choice of wood, metal, all can contribute to artistic appeal, without feeling as extra baggage ... just my two cent.

extremely expensive

 

 

Exactly. An expense that contributes nothing to the saddle. The inlay or engraving or whatever may be lovely craftsmanship and the saddle, apart from all that decoration may be lovely craftsmanship, but the saddle with the inlay/engraving/stuff is just silly. Fun maybe but it's two separate things: crafty decoration stuck on a functional saddle.

 

artistic appeal

 

 

Like I said, it moves the goods. It's still tits on a boar.

Still ducking the question. And who made you the judge and arbiter of people's choices?

I pose a simple question yet again.

Oh, do please define the line that separates art from craft!

I'll be back when you provide something beyond your opinions.

Supyiro said

"Firearms and knives can be made into art without adding extra baggage. The curves, texture, polish, choice of wood, metal, all can contribute to artistic appeal, without feeling as extra baggage ... just my two cent."

A man who understands!

Like I said, it moves the goods. It's still tits on a boar.

 

What I am saying is, it doesn't always have to be 'functional and ugly' vs 'pretty and superfluous'. It can also be 'functional and pretty and not superfluous', unless you consider any aesthetically motivated decision superfluous to functionality.

 

This is slightly tangent to the main discussion:

(CMIW) By giving the boar example, you are making the assumption that any functional item at its core is ugly. If thats so, I disagree. Think, the profile of a fighter jet.

By giving the boar example, you are making the assumption that any functional item at its core is ugly.

 

 

Not at all. Tits are lovely. Boars are lovely. Tits on a boar are ... good for attracting attention. Moves the goods. Raises the price, if you like that kind of thing.