Art or Craft?

That's the number I heard

Money of course would be a huge factor in defining what is art as opposed to what is considered to be a craft. But I would think that the fine arts are a combination of many genres as opposed to the fine arts which are considered to include music, architecture, painting, and sculpting.

On the other hand who is to say that throwing a pot or building something our of clay is not sculpting. For example the cartoons used to guide the sculptor in the process is simply drawing. The models created to produce a metal sculpture would, in my opinion, combine what is considered the craft of working in clay, wax, and perhaps plastic.

Certainly the foundry where the final work is cast is a factory with artisans that are able to, under the supervision of the artist, provide the finished product are artists in my view.


And here are the dictionary definitions for craft and for art which surprised me.

Craft - Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.

Skill in evasion or deception; guile. An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or skilled artistry. The membership of such an occupation or trade; guild.tr.v. craft·ed, craft·ing, crafts. To make by hand. To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care or ingenuity.

Usage Note: Craft has been used as a verb since the Old English period and was used in Middle English to refer specifically to the artful construction of a text or discourse. In recent years, crafted, the past participle of craft, has enjoyed a vogue as a participle referring to well-wrought writing. Craft is more acceptable when applied to literary works than to other sorts of writing, and more acceptable as a participle than as a verb. Seventy-three percent of the Usage Panel accepts the phrase beautifully crafted prose. By contrast, only 35 percent accept the sentence The planners crafted their proposal so as to anticipate the objections of local businesses.

Art - Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium; the study of these activities; the product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. Nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates). Printing. Illustrative material

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin ars, art-. See ar- in Indo-European Roots.] Synonyms: art, 1craft, expertise, knack, know-how, technique These nouns denote skill in doing or performing that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of rhetoric; pottery that reveals an artist's craft; political expertise; a knack for teaching; mechanical know-how; a precise diving technique.

Art and craft as well as commercial and fine art is seperated when one first goes into an art school. It's funny to seperate them out by an arbitrary price (I always chuckle at that joke) but that seems as arbitrary as any other delineation. Glass blowing, for instance, has been stigmitized as a commercial craft up until recently. Art glass has grown by leaps and bounds and I had many pieces in my last gallery that were priced in the high three figure to the mid four figure. Most of them were still limited editions even though each piece is slightingly different. As a rule of thumb, a limited edition in a print or anything else should be something entirely produced by the artist in numbers no more than 300. Prints done in print studios can qualify if it is a reputable publisher/studio which is sometimes associated with a museum. If they are produced by other hands and are copies of an original by an artist, they are commercial art. The new laws will no longer allow the commercial limited edition publishers to call their product original fine art. and they can also no longer appraise the work after it is sold.

What it is has a lot to do with is salability and numbers. If you make one piece of pottery or glass, for instance, that is unique and make no more than three numbered pieces, it's considered original fine art. The paradox comes when one sells the piece and how commercially viable the work becomes. If it's marketed in larger number limited editions, it becomes commercial decorative art. If you are accepted into a gallery with a high reputation and art collectors purchase the work as a collectible, it's fine art. It can also involves getting purchased by museums, even a smaller local entity.

So it doesn't have so much to do with whether a piece is art or craft but how it is marketed. Believe me, commercial publishers and galleries play the buying public like a violin.

truth
I usually defer to Lightwizard in such, and similar, matters. He obviously has given much thought to all kinds of issues regarding the commerce of art. I rarely think of the contrast between art and craft, because I am both aware of the snobbery that enters the issue and of my own tendencies in that regard. I guess the second sentence in Joanne's dictionary finding on "art" is good enough for me: "The conscious [and sometimes not so conscious] production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty...." It CAN be, but is not confined to (as in the first sentence), "effort to imitate, supplement, or coun teract the work of nature." And craft(smanship) is adequately described simply as technique or, better, proficiency.
It is my observation, however (and here shows the snobbery, perhaps) that in arts & crafts stores one sees reflections of the value of doing something that others do, not in expressive originality, just developing the ability to make something the way others have done--the development of skill or proficiency for its own sake or for the income it will bring.

The original question on Art or Craft...
The reason I asked was I recently found out my art school took out my department due to the fact it was a craft, snigger which I always believed that is what you call it when my Grandma starts to do it. As for the money part I was just being a complete smart ass as usual. Craft I thought originated from craftsman, something rare, so when did it become cheap and done in mass.

P.S. I always hated art school anyways I found it full of prentecious(sp) horny ego maniacal teachers....but that ok they didn't like me either. I'm not bitter

My mentors here at A2k have consistently said that I should avoid traditional art school and just continue my learning processes on my own. Of course I am one of those impatient ones who wants it all now. Technique that is.

And your statement, WH, backs those who say I should stay away. However, one of my artistic heroes, Luis Jimenez, teaches at UT Austin. But I suppose I would not be able to get in his classes as a meager beginner.

WH and JD, I went to two art schools in the 50s and didn't learn much. At least if I use now what I learned then, it's at a purely unconscious leve. Nevertheless, I think it's important to read books on technique and take a class once in a while with individual painters who seem to know how to handle the medium of your choice. Technique is important, and, Joanne, I do think one learns faster with help. But DON'T for God's sake, study with a teacher in order to learn his or her STYLE. You have to develop your own. That's the best way to enjoy your work and to find it expressive. I am still looking for my best style, but it's SO much more fun being "autodidactic".

Autodidactic, JLN I like that word. Sounds like fun - now I am off to check the dictionary to find out what it means so I can be it.

OK I am that and it is a fun thing most of the time

Or also more widely known as a primitive artist such as Henri Rousseau.

Drawing and painting are classified as lab courses and are, to my knowledge, still four hours long at least in university. My teachers were more overseers and the basic instruction was aimed at developing an individual style. They really functioned as critics more than anything else (the art teacher on "Six Feet Under" was uncannily on target). Like all education, it will more likely teach one to teach themselves.

I did likely learn more about creating imagery from design that in drawing and painting. I've said it before that one taking both commercial art and fine art can end up over designing their imagery. Matisse was in the antithesis of breaking all the traditional rules (even over Picasso). In fact, Picasso and Matisse were live long friends, albeit friendly rivals.

Yes, LW. Ultimately all teaching is teaching students to be autodidatic.
I like your comment about the danger of "over designing." One of my most influential classes in the 50s was a design class at Chouinards. For a while I considered my efforts to paint too "intellectual" in the sense of trying to contrive pictures with reference to principles. After a long time away from painting (40+ years), I feel much more autonomous, able to experiment. This is, I suspect, in part because a much greater freedom in the works of others and partly because I've lost the unconscious need to please teachers, to live up to some mysterious and objective criterion of "excellence"--which amounts to the tastes of aesthetic authorities.

Obviously I hit a wrong button above. It's not a quote.

Inspiration should come from intuitive places of our mind. It separates out even the old masters from the pedestrian painters of their time. There was no photography and yet even the Dutch masters were not photographic. They instilled things with an inner consciousness that communicated emotional content more than intellectual content. I never could see how one can separate the two -- they're all chemical reactions in the body. This is likely too elemental but I'm not willing to attribute any of it to metaphysical influences.

Craft is to imitate well, fine art is to create with originality.

on the subject of 'art' vs 'craft' my simple little mind has a simple little classification, as usual.

art by my definition is 'emotional communication'; simply that, no more, no less, in any form.
it usually, but not necessarily, includes decoration, composition, intuition, balance, imagination, creativity, and on, and on, and on.........

craft may include any, or all of the above; however, other than a degree of 'delight' from its uniqueness, it carries no overt emotional message.
If it passes beyond this 'threshold', it becomes 'art'.

Value (monetary) is not a factor, it is a 'result'!

LW, yes indeed ("There was no photography and yet even the old Dutch masters were not photographic"). This is how I interpret Klee's famous dictum: "Art does not render [copy] the visable; rather it makes visable."
Art does not copy natural images; it creates images. And, of course, this applies even when one's work "makes reference" to things, places and events in the natural world; the true inspiration for landscape, still life and other representational works "should come from intuitive places of our mind."

Craft is a utility of fine art. Someone is good at their craft, like an actor. Certainly many actors are practicing their craft and receiving mucho bucks even if their craft is mediocrity.

(Then they tend to run for office!)

BoGoWo, I don't know if "emotional" communication is sufficient to distinguish art from craft, but it certainly does refine our understanding of the difference; it accounts for much of the difference, I should think.