I think it's fair to say that art is frequently an interactive process in that the audience may see something very different from what the author intended. Not least because each member of the audience brings a different world view to the experience of the work.
Witness: the Left Behind books. Because of a fundamental difference in world view the authors and people who like those books see great art. Those who do not share their world view see outlandishly massive flaws in the work, and gain insight into the mind of the authors that the authors themselves cannot see.
I think they're related, but craft is more about facility and technical skill rather than intent and expression.
Particularly in the theater and film industries, but also in art in general, I would argue that they are equal parts facility/technical skill and intent/expression. It was an interesting try at an argument, but I've seen enough facility and technical skill on display in most art to find this argument to not hold water.
For example, as an illustrator and painter I consider myself a fairly skilled craftsman and I can usually draw upon those skills to create work of some quality when needed. But I only occasionally feel inspired to act in the capacity of an artist, create something for the sake of creating.
I feel the same way, as a writer.
I think I met that guy at a conference, once.
Actually, and as a side note on the art/craft distinction, there's a lot to be said about whose craft is art, and whose art is craft, to paraphrase George Carlin. Anyway, quite a lot of tranditionally female-oriented activities get dismissed for being "just a craft," while activities that men dominate are called art, or are called art when they're doing it. Like how no man is a cook in the kitchen, he's always a
chef.
Which is one of the reasons I'm reluctant to create a sharp distinction between the two.
For some reason the art/craft discussion has made me flash on the "death is your art" line from Buffy. Was it really her art, or was it her craft? I'd say the lines definitely blurred at times (using her skills on routine patrol being craft, while a more personal use of her skills probably edged over towards art).
For some reason the art/craft discussion has made me flash on the "death is your art" line from Buffy. Was it really her art, or was it her craft? I'd say the lines definitely blurred at times (using her skills on routine patrol being craft, while a more personal use of her skills probably edged over towards art).
Well, based on Tom Scola's criteria, which work as well as any, it was her art...because it definitely rated high on the Coolness axis.
That way lies madness and/or semiotics.
Frank, please to tag?
Also, "Art", according to the first definition of Webster's unabridged:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
Although Tom Scola's Theory of Cool has a much better ring to it.
Well, based on Tom Scola's criteria, which work as well as any, it was her art...because it definitely rated high on the Coolness axis.
Heh, but you're probably not going to get much empathy from/with vampires.
I felt a lot more empathy for Potemkin when I realized that Eisenstein cast himself as the crazy padre.
Anyway, I have no dog in this hunt, but I am suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance that it's David, champion of the plastic and the pre-fab and scourge of that dirty word "authenticity," who is making the more exclusionary argument about who can wear the mantle of the artist. Well, I'm off to go stick a feather in my cap and call it macaroni.
