Thursday, February 16, 2012
What Is Art? What Is Craft? Whadda I Care?
Butts In the Seats: When I was in grad school one of the first classes I was in took up the discussion of the differences between art and craft. We spent a few classes on the topic and read a number of articles debating the differences. In the end we arrived at no set definition. While I think the exercise of trying to arrive at a definition was valuable, I didn’t saw a reason to worry about the distinction. I have never been plagued with doubts that the projects with which I am involved might be craft rather than art.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This article does not necessarily pose the question what is art? But more what is art for? Art for art's sake is not beneficial to the majority of the population, and art that an audience can not understand is just kind of selfish. Art should be able to insight discussion so it shouldn't necessarily be easy to understand but it should be consumable, we should not be trying to alienate our audience (unless it is in the Brechtian, aesthetic distancy way). I think that directors, designers, and actors number one goal should be to clearly communicate something, even if that is just a feeling, if you are not trying to say something then why are you making art?
I have to agree that one person cannot really define what art is, because it means entirely different things to different people. I appreciate that the author admits being angry at what was considered art in a particular exhibit, suggesting that he did not personally believe that it should quality as art. I admit I sometimes feel the same way, I think everyone probably does. Despite his personal rejection of certain pieces being art, I like that the author still promotes the exposure of such alternative examples of artistic expression. In theatre we have one huge factor limiting our artistic expression: the audience. We are entitled to play artistically as much as we want as long as our work is still appealing to an audience. This sounds like a very restricting factor, but in reality it is not. The audience prevents theatre from falling into the sort of obsolete artistic elitism that the author of this article complains about. I personally think this is a good thing. If the purpose of art is to convey ideas, it is good to have a factor that ensures it is actually fulfilling this purpose.
I feel like this article is trying to be about one thing but actually is talking about something else. I could be wrong and someone please correct me, but it seems like they are trying to compare craftsmanship with art and I think they are two different things. Trying to justify what is art and what isn't and level of craftsmanship are 2 very different things.
Post a Comment