From: IN%"al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" 28-JAN-1994 12:04:51.39
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Art and Craft Distinction
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H87RK832AW8WVYKU@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:04 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 5529 for HRL@PSUARCH; Fri,
28 Jan 1994 12:04 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8579; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:03:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 08:23:00 -0500
From: Larry Boswell <al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Art and Craft Distinction
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <01H87RK832AW8WVYKU@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>
I question whether it's useful to have distinctions between art
and craft, what purpose does it serve in the end? I think
most people would have similar gut reactions as to the craftiness
or artfulness of a given work. The danger of saying art is this,
and craft is this, is that we then start talking in terms of
near-art, and near-craft, and near-near-art, and so on ad nauseum.
Signposts indicating direction are probably a more useful
metaphor-- if a piece is purely (Ben will love this) utilitarian
function (purely underlined) or if it is a 'cloned' work repeated
in similar form and fashion again and again, it probably is in
the direction of Craft. If, however, a piece is unique, one-time
creation, it probably is closer to Art. Skill seems irrelevant
in relationship to this distinction. There are many crafts which
require a higher skill level than required for the arts
Larry
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: Art and Craft Distinction
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: ARTCRIT <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:[email protected]>
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01H87RK832AW8WVYKU@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:04 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 5529 for HRL@PSUARCH; Fri,
28 Jan 1994 12:04 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8579; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 12:03:15 -0500
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 08:23:00 -0500
From: Larry Boswell <al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Art and Craft Distinction
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: al252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-id: <01H87RK832AW8WVYKU@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: [email protected]
>
I question whether it's useful to have distinctions between art
and craft, what purpose does it serve in the end? I think
most people would have similar gut reactions as to the craftiness
or artfulness of a given work. The danger of saying art is this,
and craft is this, is that we then start talking in terms of
near-art, and near-craft, and near-near-art, and so on ad nauseum.
Signposts indicating direction are probably a more useful
metaphor-- if a piece is purely (Ben will love this) utilitarian
function (purely underlined) or if it is a 'cloned' work repeated
in similar form and fashion again and again, it probably is in
the direction of Craft. If, however, a piece is unique, one-time
creation, it probably is closer to Art. Skill seems irrelevant
in relationship to this distinction. There are many crafts which
require a higher skill level than required for the arts
Larry