david_b._kilper

<p>"I'd disagree, completely. Crafts are ... <em>crafts</em>. Defined as being, generally, useful objects. One may approach craft with a degree of artistry, but one is still working at a craft. Fine art objects are not produced with utility in mind, beyond their usefulness as a vehicle for the artist's expression. Art is the larger set, while fine art, decorative art, etc., are all specific sub-sets.<br /><br />Art - the deliberate use of a medium (or media) and its techniques in the creation of a work"<br /> --Antonio</p>

<p>I don't agree with your argument. Setting the old term "Arts and crafts" aside, by your definition, craft IS art. A 6 year old using macaroni and glue to produce an image is considered a craft, but also fits very neatly into your definition of art. Candle making is a craft, but has many roots in folk art. OK, so the candle has a purpose. To produce light. It's a craft. I get that. But there is an exception to your rule on craft, and as we all learned in school, one exception proves the rule to be false. Candles can be art by definition through "decoration." Now lets take the argument one step further. Think of all the places in your home, or a Victorian home where candles are used to complete the environment, as decoration, (just like a painting) and not used to light the space. (Does the candle have to be wax and wick? Or can other materials produce the exact same effect, both practically or artistically?)<br /> Junk art is a craft. But has a practical purpose as well. To reuse trash. Notice how junk ART is a CRAFT?<br /> Some serial murderers considered themselves artists.<br /> And what of "witchCRAFT?" (a stretch I know, but my point is that it isn't finite.)<br /> Webster and Oxford produce fine definitions to be sure, but this isn't just a matter of definition, but rather philosophy. I realize the original question asked for a finite definition, but in reality, the meaning--whether intended or not--was what do we PERCEIVE as art/fine art?</p>

<p>A fine image can be crafted in a darkroom. As performed by my father who is considered a master print maker. He is also an artist, but does not justify that by his mastery of techniques. I think a craft is something that is constructed. By many definitions we have read on this thread already, that makes it some kind of art, fine or not. There is intent, purpose, medium, etc...</p>

<p>I'm compelled to remove photography from the equation. Maybe with so many changes in medium and pop trends the real meaning has been lost. Maybe we should be analyzing works by master painters throughout history as compared to graffiti artists and cave painters. Is painting a wall for a new apartment craft or art? What about automotive "design?" I do respect your point of view, I just think it's trying to be far more specific than what is actually possible.</p>

<p>"Fine art" is a difficult concept to quantify, and it's inherent meaning prevents it from being fully objectified. My family studied painting directly under Rodney Winfield and Edward Boccia and both had unique views on fine art. Winfield saw it as the nomenclature of the incompetent, and Boccia saw it as the finite description of generalization. When Rembrandt was asked if he perceived himself as an "Artist" he asked, "What is that?" The point that I'm trying to make is that no "artist" (in the strict philosophical sense) ever thought of themselves as producing "fine art." They had a particular vision, unique to their own thought processes and technique, and sought only to produce a faithful representation of their idea, or rather, produce art.</p>

<p>My personal thought on it is that fine art is a very general term that is rather meaningless. It can be used to describe over saturation with photoshop, African replica wooden art, paint by numbers, or block printing--where-as, when I think of art, I think of a purposefully crafted image, structure, sculpture, etc., with a very specific purpose, even if that purpose is only known to the artist.</p>

<p>When one does photography, the moment one changes an image in such a way that changes the context or content, even slightly, it no longer resides in the realm of photography, but rather art (or maybe in some ambiguous realm where one can't fully decide). It can be explained mathematically for ex.:<br /> PHOTOGRAPH + ONE STROKE OF OIL PAINT = SOMETHING NEW<br /> DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPH + PHOTOSHOP MANIPULATION = SOMETHING NEW<br /> Whether that resultant image is art, a mistake, happy accident, or a waste of time I feel is only for the original artist/photographer to decide, but no longer is it it a photograph, or photography. Photography is only ONE element, ONE variable, in the equation.<br /> A + B Cannot = A unless B is nothing where A = PHOTOGRAPHY<br /> A + B = C<br /> So apparently, the meaning of "art" can be proved finitely. But can it be done with "fine art?" Perhaps the question should be "What is 'Fine?'" If anyone can do it please, PLEASE, let me know. As an architect trained in the Bauhaus tradition, and a photographer whose role models are Karsh, Lang, and Capa, I'm always struggling with this. I hope this helps, or at the very least gives you a new point of view. If it confuses you I'm sorry. Ha ha.</p>