Last week, one of our artists was dropping off some new work at the gallery.
"Really," he declared, "you guys are as much about selling crafts as you're an art gallery."
It's not the first we've heard something like that; in fact, I heard it quite often during the 15 years I had a gallery in another city.
What Makes Something "Art" as opposed to "Craft?"
Currants in the sun
In my experience, the whole "art vs craft" debate is one of those nebulous areas in which it seems everyone has an opinion, but very few actually know what they are talking about.
Our artist friend seemed to be basing his assertion on three primary facts:
- We have items in the gallery that are below a certain price
- We have items in the gallery that have a "function" (i.e. "applied" art)
- We have items in the gallery that might be considered a "gift" item
Of course, that's just one definition-- and what I'd call a rather "upscale" one. We do, indeed, have work from woodworkers and ceramic artists that are more "functional" in nature... but they are none-the-less aesthetically beautiful and exceptionally well executed.
Hobby vs. Profession
In most cases-- but not always-- people look at whether someone is an artist "as a profession" (or calling) or they are just dabbling, as a hobby.
Butterfly on brick
Clearly, Aunt Edna gluing rhinestones to T-shirts isn't what most people would think of as "art." But how about Grandpa starting to paint, after he retires from his corporate job? Is that "art?"
Some would argue that in order for something to be "art," it suggests that you've had a formal fine arts education, or-- at the very least-- an apprenticeship under some "Master" in a field.
But that doesn't really hold water, either, as there are lots of people who have created exceptional art, yet have no formal training, at all... in fact, they were self-taught.
"Statement" vs. "Skill"
Another argument goes that art is about "making a statement," somehow... and merely being very skilled with your medium makes you nothing more than "a crafts person."
This seems to be particularly a "big city" approach, where the last 40-50 years has often been heavily focused on which artist can "create the greatest stir" in the community.
Prickly Pear
In a sense, it's an approach that pulls at the opposite end of creativity, ignoring skill and training and focusing purely on "impact." Ironically, "classical" art training typically involved a period of apprenticeship focusing on mastering one's medium.
A Debate Without End?
I don't claim to have the answers here, but this is a very old debate. I am not even entirely sure what it's ultimately about... except maybe some artists who got together and decided that they were upset that "some kid with a paintbrush" dared to call himself an artist, when they'd had years and years of training and experience.
Maybe it's not even an "important" debate, except to a very small handful of purists.
DISCUSSION: What do YOU think? If you're an artist, is this a debate you have run into, and been part of? Do you think there's a line between art and craft? Or is all "creativity" art, in its own way? Leave a comment!
The Red Dragonfly is an independent alternative art gallery located in Port Townsend, WA; showcasing edgy and unique contemporary art & handmade crafts by local and worldwide artists. All images are our own, unless otherwise credited. Where applicable, artist images used with permission.
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
I always thought of craft as a subset of art, usually three-dimensional, and made of multiple pieces which I see as a very broad term.
In my humble opinion, anyone can create art, with any level of experience, but the characteristic that separates creative person from artist is the effort put into marketing one's art. I see the word 'artist' as definitive of art being work, not just a hobby.
But as you say, there are a million opinions out there, very little to substantiate them. :)
Specifically, art being the broad term. Not the multiple pieces.
Thanks for sharing @rachelsvparry... I like that interpretation as craft being a "subset," and I agree that it is, in many situations.
Sometimes I observe the ostensible "critics" shoot themselves in the foot with their insistence on abstraction and certain forms of expression... and next thing they are fawning all over ancient Asian pottery that directly contradicts their metrics... claiming their standards are somehow "different" when something is old enough.
As you said, very little to substantiate these opinions.