as always @reddragonfly, your posts are a breath of fresh air to me and I deeply appreciate how you approach the difficult topics that are maybe well-worn but still are rarely questioned at large.
this is a good topic to reckon with and explore and continually redefine for oneself regardless of "right answers" and I agree that there may not be a correct answer. I believe that the value of this line of thought has to do with questioning our assumptions and our judgements.
I remember one discussion about this as an undergrad in a room of graduate art students and it was heated. The one thought that stayed with me over the years is to separate art and craft by asking whether it addresses the human condition. Art can be poorly crafted or well-crafted (technically) but does it express something beyond the technique? I think that any medium, genre can be either art or craft depending on this question.
I've used this a my point of departure in thinking about this subject but not my end point. Lately when considering my own work I consider which pieces are simply decorative (not at all of lesser value, just not art) and which are art, and I would say that from a creative point of view I truly know the difference when I'm making an art piece and a piece of craft and it has to do with expression.
That's my 2 cents for today , thanks for asking the good questions!
@natureofbeing, thanks for a great reply!
Just yesterday, I was talking to one of the artists we represent at the gallery, and she was talking about her college days in California, and how many classes/teachers (in the late 1960s/early 1970s) would give you "an automatic D" if your painting wasn't abstract, or of your 3D work (pottery, wood, sculpture) was even remotely functional. Out of that discussion came the reality that sometimes "what is" and "what isn't" is as much a statement of fashion and trends, as it is anything directly artistic.
I work a lot with Sacred Geometry, which makes most of my work pretty clearly "defined" rather than interpretive, so it's most likely craft by most measures... even if I'm "trying to express something cosmic" through the images. The "Flower of Life" isn't exactly an original idea... but then I get back to the fact that I also consider my own enjoyment of the process as important.
That practice of grading according to style baffles me...such a shallow way to think about art!
You raise an interesting point about using sacred geometry - something I often use as well - and I agree that in working with existing forms and subjects we are making something powerful and impactful but not really expressive or inventive per se. I suppose it's a question of whether we take it further. There are times that I've seen for instance seed of life digital works that ARE art (at least I see them that way). Someone has taken the geometry and added to it in a way that inspires feeling and takes it to a new level. This thread reminds me even more than usual how my value of something really has nothing to do with whether it is art of craft and rather it's substance, aesthetic, and heart, does it move me, do I love it etc... Yes I can think about it and why it's brilliant but I'll only reach into my pocket to buy it if it truly moves me and I love it.
Love these conversations ;-)
On a personal level, I don't really "care" very much whether something is art of craft. What I care about is whether or not I felt something in its presence... and that feeling can be a range of things from simply a deep appreciation for someone's extraordinary mastery of their medium, to something being deeply evocative... to a whole range of other feelings.
Ultimate question: Did the work cause someone to STOP and feel like they ENGAGED with what they saw? If the answer is "yes," then the piece "worked;" it did its thing.
Agreed, well said