Art or Craft?

[Ocelot55]

"briarrhea"

Looks like that is going to be my take away from this thread so far.

[sandahlpipe]

"briarrhea"

Looks like that is going to be my take away from this thread so far.

Yep. Definitely need to bookmark this term.

Philosophically speaking, art is useless. In other words, the fact that it is useful is secondary, whereas it's beauty is primary. Since a pipe, in order to be a pipe, must be useful as a pipe, it cannot properly be considered art in the philosophical sense. Practically speaking, however, certain pieces are never smoked by their owners, but displayed. In such instances, the owner of said pieces treats them as art.

Would it be fair to suggest that it is art when form takes a primary role and function only secondary?

And if I've said anything profound, I give credit to Roger Scruton. If I've said anything dumb, be sure it is my own thoughts.

[RobEsArt]

The purpose of making "Art" is enlightenment.
The purpose of making "Craft" is entertainment.

Intention is key.
If the intention is to paint, sculpt, construct something "pretty" to compliment the environment (ie, the living/dining/family room), then the creation was craft.

If the intention is self discovery, then it is art.

I agree, and it's certainly complex. I think Todd's "fiercely intertwined" is exactly right. It illustrates the complex nature of two concepts forming a larger whole...if one were able to untangle those, we would have an easier discussion on our hands. At the end of the day the reason we have the words art and craft are so we can attempt to differentiate the different qualities of the two. "Shit people make" doesn't quite do the job.

I think it's important to add that I don't think craft is inherently inferior to art. There is a common implication that it is, and I think much of that stems from art world elitism intended to increase the monetary value of art. I think art is one of our most valuable social treasures, and I think those in possession of minds capable of creating beautiful art should be successful. That doesn't mean the best craftspeople aren't deserving of the same.

"fiercely intertwined" or ignorantly enmeshed? People become fierce when they are defending their position due to lack of understanding.

I try to avoid the elitist mentalities. I am in search of truth. I am not concerned with the monetary value of art, for the actual art is the moment of creation-not the leftover artifact. Regardless how aesthetically pleasing something is, the true beauty is only available to the one who is making it, in the moment of creation. In order to awaken, one must let go of ones dreams and preconceived notions of existence.

Everything we think we know is conditioned by subjective experience. Truth resides in the objective.

The true purpose of art is not to make a living, it is to make the soul grow (enlightenment).
The true purpose of craft is... "I want a new bookshelf in that corner."

To imply that art is merely decoration (I like how the colors in the painting tie the whole room together), is the common destructive force that is pulling each and everyone of us away from the possibility of realizing our greatest potential.



I hope this helps.


Chokyi Seng-Ge

[d.huber]

Interesting thoughts, guys.

I consider "fiercely intertwined" to be appropriate because nothing is as simple as "I want a bookshelf in that corner." If it were that simple, anything resembling a shelf which would hold books would do. For some maybe that's all that means. For me, it should be a beautiful bookshelf. Is a beautiful bookshelf craft only since its intent is utility?

In my home, our dishes are beautiful hand-thrown pottery which was made by a masterful hand. To me, they are art whose utility I use every day. Because I happen to know the guy, I know that his exploration of pottery continues to be an exploration of himself. It's one of the reasons his work stands out to me.

Can a thing of utility be a work of art if the creator's intention is self exploration through that medium but not a work of art if the creator's intent is just to make something pretty that does its job?

Furthermore, who gets to decide if something is art or not? There are plenty of "artists" in the world who create stuff which shows a clear lack of intent, discipline, or experience. If they call themselves artists by your definition, RobEsArt, then they are. Are they?

This topic generally raises more questions for me than it provides answers.

[d.huber]

A particular manifestation or instance of "art" (e.g. a painting) can be used for all sorts of things (kindling, a makeshift umbrella, giant frisbee, etc.), but I believe Armie is talking about "art" on a conceptual level. I can receive some kind of emotional charge from a painting or emotional drain from yet another example of what I like to call "briarrhea" but I can't use the "beauty" of the art (i.e. the essence of the art) to affect the physical world around me. (I assume this is what the Trout-man means when he says "practical use".)

Sparkly thoughts, Ernie.

A painting could be used for the things you listed, but then it would not be serving its intended purpose. Pipes make great coals in a fire, but I doubt anyone would toss their pipe into a blaze just to watch it burn.

My point is that art, in this case a painting, does serve a practical purpose which is to literally affect the physical world around you. Unnecessary though that purpose may be, it does alter the physical space we inhabit and that is a big part of owning a painting (putting it to practical use).

The canvas and paint can have a real world impact, but canvas and paint aren't art. Your field of performing art makes that point even better. The art there is absolutely not the human bodies on the stage, it's the expression and usage of those bodies that is art.

Very interesting point!

Are you suggesting that the craft in any discipline is the materials/their implementation and the result of their implementation is art?

I could maybe get on board with that. However, that leads me to more questions. A guitarist uses their instrument to create music, which in this scenario would be the product/art. But the guitar itself is the product of combining materials. Would the guitar also be considered art? Could the guitar be both art and craft?

[LatakiaLover]

Alright, I'm gonna really fuck this up.

Can a thing be art if its creator had no awareness or intention of making art at the time it was made?

Think hard before you answer, D'Huber.

[The Smoking Yeti]

Can a thing be art if its creator had no awareness or intention of making art at the time it was made?

I don't believe true artists sit there thinking "I'm making ART!" as they do so. Art is NOT fueled by a desire to create art. Real/meaningful art is the expression of something greater and outside of ones' self. The notion that art is self-expression is navel-gazing bullshit. If what you're seeking to express is all within yourself, you will never make anything truly great.

No, true art is found when the creator is inspired by something truly transcendent and outside themselves. These inspirers of artists are historically known by many names, I will call them the Muses. I think the reason many artists experience periods of depression and creative stagnation is simple- you cannot FORCE art- its creation is hinged upon something wholly outside of ones self.

Art is the product of an artist, inspired by something greater/higher than themselves. So yes, pipe can be art, if they are made by an artist.

If Picasso had learned our craft, and the pipes he made were inspired the way his painting was, then I believe they would be(rightly) considered art.

[The Smoking Yeti]

Don't you have some dodecahedron to hand sand?

I think you missed a typo. What you meant to saw was:

Don't you have some art to hand sand?

[LatakiaLover]

I don't believe true artists sit there thinking "I'm making ART!" as they do so. Art is NOT fueled by a desire to create art. Real/meaningful art is the expression of something greater and outside of ones' self. The notion that art is self-expression is navel-gazing bullshit. If what you're seeking to express is all within yourself, you will never make anything truly great.

"...something greater and outside of..."

Mysticism / spirituality has now been officially invoked. There's NOTHING that can be proved or refuted when discussing such matters since there isn't even agreement on what those things are, never mind whether they exist.

No, true art is found when the creator is inspired by something truly transcendent and outside themselves. These inspirers of artists are historically known by many names, I will call them the Muses. I think the reason many artists experience periods of depression and creative stagnation is simple- you cannot FORCE art- its creation is hinged upon something wholly outside of ones self.

Talking about what art is is difficult enough, and you're already qualifying some of it as "true," and some as "not true"? And there's that "outside of" thing again. Wholly outside of, in fact. You're making art sound more faith / belief-based all the time.

Art is the product of an artist, inspired by something greater/higher than themselves. So yes, pipe can be art, if they are made by an artist.

"Art is the product of an artist" is self-referential and therefore semantically null. The whole greater / higher / outside of / transcendent thing is undefinable. And that last bit is circular logic of the purest sort.

If Picasso had learned our craft, and the pipes he made were inspired the way his painting was, then I believe they would be(rightly) considered art.

Ah. Picasso. You'd have no problem finding vast numbers of people who, if shown his work without attribution, would simply laugh at it. Bad example.

(On the other hand, I think that some of Gotoh's finer pieces would drop jaws and elicit astonishment from an overwhelming majority of humans on Planet Earth, regardless of language, upbringing, culture, or nationality.)

[The Smoking Yeti]

All well said George! Spoken like a true engineer!

[mredmond]

Don't you have some dodecahedron to hand sand?

I think you missed a typo. What you meant to saw was:

Don't you have some art to hand sand?

No, if I were to restate it would be "Don't you have some artfully executed crafts to hand sand?" : )

I think George expanded on some of the issues that I have with subjectivity and intent. It's still a tricky topic and I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it, but I'm uncomfortable accepting total subjectivity/relativity.

[The Smoking Yeti]

I think the reason that this subject IS so polarizing is exactly because(I would argue, and George might disagree) real art is transcendent- it is a marrying of a completely invisible idea/force with the visible world. I know the way I'm stating it can be argued with and disproved analytically, but I am of the opinion that there are some things which cannot be explained, categorized, or quantified. It's a matter of some people see it and recognize it, and some people do not- a notion which sits very poorly with our analytical/scientific Western society.

Either way, this is a fun argument to have. I would hesitate to call it a debate, as I don't believe my point is scientifically provable. However, I do not think that makes it any less true.

[LatakiaLover]

All well said George! Spoken like a true engineer!

Dismissing the real world does not make it go away, you realize.

I have no problem with people attempting to describe subjective things. What's necessary for their descriptions to mean anything, though, are definitions of the terms used for the purpose. Otherwise, it's pointless... just strung together mumbly sounds and happywords.

[The Smoking Yeti]

I already gave you my definition of art. It is to a great sense indefinite/intangible, and I get that. You can say it's a bunch of happy words, and again, what you say is spoken like a true engineer. I'm not denying the real world, I'm simply suggesting that art is the convergence of two worlds. Fully understanding it and trying to quantify/define it is an exercise in futility- which is exactly why this topic always provides a lively thread.

[mredmond]

It's an exercise in futility only if the goal is consensus. There is a lot of value in the discussion. Sometimes real gems like "briarrhea" shake loose.

[sandahlpipe]

real art is transcendent- it is a marrying of a completely invisible idea/force with the visible world.

This.

Although some of the artistic movements of the 20th century have attempted to redefine this notion. Good art is something that grabs the imagination. It points beyond itself. Simpler forms on well-executed pipes can point beyond themselves to an extent with lines hinting at things that are not there, allowing the eye to complete what is not visible on the pipe itself.

Thus, I would suggest that pipes can have tendencies in either the "art" or "craft" direction with a scale between. Simple, classic shapes I would submit fall under the craft side, while shapes like Walt's Penny-Farthing would fall much closer to art than craft.

[The Smoking Yeti]

I think I should follow up my previous comments. I believe that most pipes made are firmly rooted in the realm of craft. You can say they are artfully crafted if you like- although I'm still not sure I agree with the phrasing. Maybe beautifully crafted works better. (OOH! There's another question, is beauty the same as art? Or, is art necessarily beautiful?)

I would also say there are some pipes which are wholly art, and wholly pipe. To have a "pipe" that is "arty" yet not really that pipe-ish, is really a double failure to me.

As to many of Gotoh's best works George, I think they're art.

Edit:

I don't think a billiard is art.

[The Smoking Yeti]

Oh, and Ernie:

[LatakiaLover]

For any who might have missed the reference:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10089

[scotties22]

I don't think a billiard is art.

This bothers me. Why exactly? Is art only extremely complex? Since when are simple lines and symmetry not art? Is it because you find the shape boring? Is it your preconceived notion of what art is? You don't feel transcendent when you look at a perfectly shaped billiard? Which, by the way, is A LOT harder to achieve than just about any other pipe you can make.

DO NOT limit yourself by being so closed minded, young one. There is beauty, perfection, transcendation and any other fucking artsy fartsy word you want to put on something as simple as a perfectly drawn freehand circle. Again, something that it takes a master to do.