In this conversation, I am Sue. Probably because we both come from theatre, which I think is a lot harder to define as an art than the visual or writing arts. If we are going with David's defininition of Art, I think most of what is on Broadway probably wouldn't qualify, but I think those people acting and directing an designing are still artists.

Of course, I once wrote a paper on how Stage Management was an art, and not a craft (or tech), because (among other things) when you were calling the show, if you were good, it wasn't necessarily about the cues you wrote in the book on the specific line, but about that particular performance, in that moment, and how it was differently paced every time.

When I was working full-time in theatre, I listed my "occupation" as 'theatre artist" even though I was working on bad productions of Children's theatre that were probably only momentarily capital "A" art.

I've never seen Bones.

I have dug up bones, though!

Going back a bit...

I have absolutely no doubt that anti-depressants can negatively effect creativity.

I'm sure it can, but it can also have a positive effect. I'm Living Proof!

Since I've been on the anti-depressants my thought processes have been clearer and my energy has increased and there has been a corresponding increase in my creativity.

Most of my You'll All Pays were written while on the 'butrin Bullet Train and I'm writing more even today. Before the anti-depressants I was too busy trying to stay awake as my brain was mired in doldrums and was desperately diving for Dreamland in an effort to avoid the stupid horribleness of Every Day Life.

So, while I no longer experience (for the most part) the extremes of emotion that can drive creative output, I'm feeling much more creative now that I'm not enslaved to those same extremes.

This Post Is Entirely Subjective. Your 'Butrin (or Whatever) May Vary.

This Post Is Not Art.

...or is it?

(DUN dun dun...)

Thank you, Strega. I was not up to the challenge of finding that data myself.

:: sits almost patiently waiting for the rest of Scola ::

it can also have a positive effect. I'm Living Proof!

Absolutely--even in a scenario as simple as "Well, they're why I'm still alive to even be able to attempt art."

Absolutely--even in a scenario as simple as "Well, they're why I'm still alive to even be able to attempt art."

Well, that too, though I don't think I was that far gone.

But I'm sure there are artists out there producing who may have been contemplating that choice: "Xanax or a bullet? Hmmmm..."

Empathy is probably an even more complicated subject than Cool. The important thing to remember that true Empathy requires a shared connection between the artist and the observer. It's extremely subjective, and highly dependent on the observer.

Empathy is when an artist attempts to convey an emotion or experience. It is necessary to distinguish Empathy from false empathy, where the artist is not experiencing an emotion himself, but is cynically trying to manipulate the observer's emotions.

This in itself is not a bad thing. Eisenstein's The Battleship Potemkin, is a premier example of this false empathy, and yet it is considered one of the most influential movies of all time. While Potemkin scores low on the Empathy axis, it does well on the Intelligence, Talent and Cool axes. Being able to effectively manipulate people's emotions is an act of great skill.

Precious Moments, on the other hand, scores low on all four axes. There is no Intelligence involved, little or no Talent required, and is a prime example of false empathy.

Since Coolness and Empathy are relative to the observer, a person could look at Precious Moments and consider them to be Empathic and Cool and therefore artistic, but that would require the person to be emotionally naive and culturally starved. For most people, Precious Moments would score low on all four axes, and not meet the threshold to be considered art.

I have no idea why I'm all up in arms about Precious Moments--I think they're awful. I guess I just don't know that Samuel Butler wasn't feeling what he was trying to convey. And I *know* there's art out there that requires less skill than he displays. What he did is well executed. I think it's kitschy and schlocky and icky, but that doesn't mean he didn't mean it. And it doesn't mean I could do it myself.

I guess I just don't know that Samuel Butler wasn't feeling what he was trying to convey.

This. This is what bugs me - the assertion of motives.

Of course, there's a WHOLE school of thought (I know it was trendy when I was in college; not sure if it still is) about the myth of intent. It's not what the author intends that matters but what the audience takes from the work. I think there's some validity to it, but there was a great deal of overkill, IMO. For me, that way lies madness and/or semiotics.

Scola, that was an excellent work of synthesis of the objective and subjective sides of the argument.

I too still think Precious Moments count as art -- though crappy art -- simply because of how many people invest their emotions in those figurines. I don't, and I really can't fathom the people who do, but they draw emotion like a chemical process, and the presence of that much emotion -- even if I don't respect the quality of that emotion -- is meaningful. Possibly that also puts me in the anthropologist crowd. (But also I am right.)

Popular art which, as you well know, references something closer to artisanship. Craft.

No, see, David, I'm disputing your terms of debate because they don't make any sense. Art is art is art. Saying that the addition of an adjective makes art into not-art is like saying that a sunny day is not a day. Also, on the semantic level, allow me to beat you with a DVD boxed set over the very idea that popularity -- in the audience-size sense, and in the intended-for-broad-consumption sense -- is a cause for debasement and devaluation. "It's popular therefore it's no good" is an idea that needs my foot in its ass in all its incarnations, and you're veering desperately close to it.

Also, I would put craft and art into the same conceptual bin, so closely that on odd days I would say they're the same thing.