>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
While I cannot disagree with any of this, I think a rather different tack
to the question is more enlightening: A field or whatever is a craft if the
people in it have low status and/or are not paid much, and an art if they
have high status and/or a reasonable income from it. The words are simply
markers to differentiate high and low status workers, and fields will
differ in time in how they are designated as their social fortunes wax or
wane.
I can't see the point of, and reject any attempt to, construct some sort of
essentialist definition of 'art' and 'craft'. They are both socially
constructed concepts, and mean what society wants them to mean. The words,
of course, are used in struggles for status in that to say one is a skilled
craftsperson means something very different from saying one is a gifted
artist.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA
>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
While I cannot disagree with any of this, I think a rather different tack
to the question is more enlightening: A field or whatever is a craft if the
people in it have low status and/or are not paid much, and an art if they
have high status and/or a reasonable income from it. The words are simply
markers to differentiate high and low status workers, and fields will
differ in time in how they are designated as their social fortunes wax or
wane.
I can't see the point of, and reject any attempt to, construct some sort of
essentialist definition of 'art' and 'craft'. They are both socially
constructed concepts, and mean what society wants them to mean. The words,
of course, are used in struggles for status in that to say one is a skilled
craftsperson means something very different from saying one is a gifted
artist.
Garry Stevens
Dept of Architectural and Design Science
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
AUSTRALIA