Speaking in broad strokes (pun intended), we think of art as something only someone with innate talent can produce. Craft can be learned by anyone. Craftsmanship refers to the perfection of a technique - like a craftsman who can turn a smooth, geometrically ideal stair rail. No matter how skilled the carpenter becomes, he can only ever be an artisan.
I've started with a search of definitions of art, and most distill to "the product of human creativity and imagination." But what is craft if not creation? And does craft not require at least a minimum of inspiration? Much craft does involve the duplication of a process, but does moving the sticker to the lower left hand corner of the hand-made card rather than placing it in the upper right make it art? Therefore I assert that most definitions of art are actually definitions of craft.
So I am left with no definition of art, but a mind full of the possible properties of art:
- art reflects the world as it is
- art presents the world as it may be
- art manipulates the senses to create an emotion
- art glorifies God and His creations
- art glorifies man and his creations
Art which captivates us is typically of a different character. It may portray the lushness of nature, the bond within a family, the bittersweet bloom of youth, the wisdom of age, or an attempt to connect with a force bigger than ourselves. It is uplifting. It is hopeful.
Modern art
For those of you who enjoy modern art, I will say up front, we will disagree. I have visited modern art galleries, and I have found little that will rise above the level of "craft." And most is remote even from that.I will inflame fans by lumping most modern art under the heading of "experimental." Experimenting with colors, experimenting with patterns which could only be described as "plaid," sculpture which defines curves and angles but which is of nothing in particular. Of these works I can only say, they are not art. They are practice. They are the steps along the way to creating art, not art itself. They are the extras on the DVD which show snippets of storyboard and sketches of costumes. The film is the art. I am not against experimenting. In fact, I am typically a fan of anything new, shiny, and innovative. But please do not frame your scribbles and hang them on the wall.
Modern maestros Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein cause me some consternation, however. Both are obviously craftsmen, creating technically perfect paintings. And in the elevation of the mundane to the potential status of art, they cause us to reevaluate the significance of things around us. I can only conclude that a can of tomato soup is not art, but Warhol's ironic display is. It falls under the category of glorification of man and his creations. It is neither good art nor great art as previously defined, but it is art.
Shock art
Those who defend shock art (Mapplethorpe, for instance) usually claim its detractors "don't understand it." Art is understood viscerally, not intellectually. Those who are offended by it simply don't like the way it makes them feel. This is a perfectly legitimate response to a medium which is intended to manipulate the viewer's emotions. It does not make one less to dislike it, or more to appreciate it. If shock art is intended to discomfit in an attempt to shift society towards a more functional model, then it must be classed as good art. Unfortunately, most seems to be designed for no other reason than to create a response. This is as unenlightened as creating art for money. Part of the difficulty in this category is that most of it seems to be photographic. Photography is largely craft, as anyone can learn to operate a camera, anyone can learn the manipulation of light and focus. Thus the genre must largely be judged on subject matter, not on execution.It's the message, stupid
Another problem in evaluating modern, shock, or non-traditional art is that the message is often intended to be intellectual, not emotional. If art has to be explained, can it be art? If art is the manipulation of the senses to arouse emotions, then much in this genre fails. The message intended may be profound. But the message is not received by viewing the piece itself - it can only be gleaned by reading the manual. This is not art, this is unintentional misdirection.Commercial art
Based on my understanding of the artist, art is something that grows inside him or her as a concept or an image, and it must be birthed lest the artistic psyche suffer. It often feels as though it has come from outside the artist, like divine inspiration. Therefore art is unconcerned with profit. Artists are not, and in a Capitalist society there is no flaw in wanting to pay the bills. I am not suggesting that artists not sell their work. Commercial art refers not to art which is sold, but merely art which is created for money. This includes advertising. Commercial art is, by and large, not art, but craft. It can be the duplication of a piece of art, which repeats merely the process of producing the art, not the inspiration behind it. It can be the manipulation of a viewer to produce the impulse to buy something else. This is a very precise craft which may be mistaken for art, but it is not art.Historic art
Some crafts pieces gain significance because of the intricate portrayal of an otherwise forgotten time or place. They may allow us to understand how others lived and as such are of valuable service. This may not make them art, but grants them a position in certain museums.Kinetic art
Art which moves has a distinct advantage over static art: it can present us with a path - a path to follow, or the consequences of a path to be avoided. Literature, films and television, music, even comic books are some of the most influential artworks of our time. I will apply the same test of the quality of art to these: a good work of art presents the problem; a great work shows the solution. Most kinetic art is commercial craft, but nonetheless this is where most of the great art of the 21st century will be born.What makes West Wing, the show that inadvertently inspired this blog, art? The show was undoubtedly created for profit, at least from the view of the network. But the content remains artistic. It presents the problem: people are disillusioned about their leaders and disdain politics and, to a greater or lesser extent, remain uninformed regarding the complexities of national and international affairs. The solution: put a man in office who, while fallible and very human, acts with integrity and honor. Show others respond to his actions with respect and openness. Each episode represents a possible path from chaos to order.
And what of music? Isn't all music commercial? Well, popular music is commercial. But not all music is commercialized. Many popular songs achieve the status of static art, portraying with sensitivity the emotions of a moment. Some songpainters even create a flow, a timeline in less than five minutes. But where are our Mozarts? Our Beethovens? They're composing music for films and television. And the best of it is very much art.
And so I present a functional, but incomplete, definition of art: the manipulation of the senses by any media to create an emotional response which advocates action from chaos to order. My definition of chaos is a lack of self-determination through, for instance, illness or poverty or hopelessness. Order represents the highest goals of humanity.
Namaste.
